The defect in this chain is its disconnection: first between Ibn Jurayj and Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit, and again between Ḥabīb and ʿĀṣim ibn Ḍumrah. Both Ibn Jurayj and Ibn Abī Thābit—despite their stature—are known for tadlīs (omitting the intermediary).

In one recension Ibn Jurayj explicitly stated that he received the report only through an intermediary from Ibn Abī Thābit. Abū Dāwūd—and, through him, al-Bayhaqī—related it via Ḥajjāj from Ibn Jurayj, who said: “I was informed by Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit from ʿĀṣim…,” meaning this very ḥadīth.

For that reason Abū Ḥātim said in al-ʿIlal: “Ibn Jurayj did not hear this ḥadīth from Ḥabīb; it actually comes from ʿAmr ibn Khālid al-Wāsiṭī, and no reliable narration of Ḥabīb from ʿĀṣim is established.”

Ibn Maʿīn said the same—as cited in al-Talkhīṣ—that Ḥabīb did not hear it from ʿĀṣim and that an unreliable man stands between them. Al-Bazzār identified that intermediary as ʿAmr ibn Khālid al-Wāsiṭī.

I say: It is likely for this very reason that Abū Dāwūd, after citing the report, remarked, “This ḥadīth is objectionable.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ then commented: “In the Ziyādāt to the Musnad, in al-Dāraqutnī, and in the Musnad of al-Haytham ibn Kulayb, Ibn Jurayj is recorded as explicitly saying that Ḥabīb informed him. In my view, this is an error, and I have discussed it in my Dictation on the aḥādīth of Ibn al-Ḥājib’s Mukhtaṣar.”

I say: We shall now clarify the mistake to which al-Ḥāfiẓ alluded.