its defect lies with this Abū Kathīr, for he is an unknown narrator, as Ibn Ḥazm observed. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar adds, “I have found no statement explicitly declaring him reliable.”

Al-Ṭaḥāwī included the report in both Sharḥ [Maʿānī al-Āthār] and Mushkil al-Āthār; it was also cited by al-Ḥākim, al-Bayhaqī, Aḥmad, and by al-Bukhārī in al-Tārīkh, as noted in Fatḥ al-Bārī.

What is truly surprising is al-Bayhaqī’s comment—after setting out the chains of these three narrations—“These are sound isnāds that may be used as evidence,” even though any novice in this science, let alone a scholar of al-Bayhaqī’s rank, can see that none of them is authentic, as we have demonstrated. Hence Ibn al-Turkumānī, in al-Jawhar al-Naqī, refuted him with essentially the same criticisms we have listed and then said: “Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ also held that all three fall short of soundness.”

Fourth: the ḥadīth of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may Allah be pleased with him.

Ibn Jurayj narrates it from Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit, from ʿĀṣim ibn Ḍumrah, from ʿAlī.

Ibn Mājah recorded it—under the chapter on washing the deceased in the Book of Funerals of his Sunan—through Bishr ibn Ādam; al-Ḥākim through al-Ḥārith ibn Usāmah; and al-Bayhaqī through Muḥammad ibn Saʿd al-ʿAwfī, all three routes going back to Rūḥ ibn ʿUbādah. Al-Ṭaḥāwī cited it in Sharḥ al-Āthār and in Mushkil al-Āthār through Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, and al-Dāraqutnī through ʿAbd al-Majīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Abī Rawwād, all of them from Ibn Jurayj with the same chain.