Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī, in his detailed verification, states:

“ Ibn Ḥibbān narrated it from Ibn Masʿūd, while al-Ḥākim narrated it from Anas and declared: ‘Its chain is sound.’ ”

I say: This is a third consideration that supports the view I have adopted, for had Ibn Ḥibbān possessed the report only through the route of Abū al-Khalīl, al-ʿIrāqī would never have passed over the point in silence, just as he did not remain silent in his commentary on al-Tirmidhī, as al-Shawkānī has already transmitted. What is less satisfactory is his silence regarding al-Ḥākim’s authentication—and even stranger is that al-Dhahabī concurred with it.

Al-Ḥākim brought the ḥadīth in the Mustadrak through the chain of Aḥmad ibn Bakr al-Bālisī, who said: “Zayd ibn al-Ḥabbāb narrated to us; Sufyān al-Thawrī narrated to us from ʿAwn ibn Abī Juḥayfah, from al-Ḥasan ibn Abī al-Ḥasan, from Anas, traced back to the Prophet:

‘A time will come upon people when they will sit in circles inside their mosques, and their only concern will be worldly matters. Allah has no need of them, so do not sit with them.’ ”

Al-Ḥākim commented, “Its chain is sound,” and al-Dhahabī said likewise.

Both, however, overlooked the criticism levelled at this Aḥmad ibn Bakr—criticism that al-Dhahabī himself recorded in his Mīzān. His exact words are:

“Aḥmad ibn Bakr al-Bālisī, also called Ibn Bakruwayh, Abū Saʿīd. Ibn ʿAdī said: ‘He transmits objectionable reports from reliable narrators.’ He then cited three of his traditions, among them one from Ḥajjāj, from Ibn Jurayj, from ʿAṭāʾ, from Abū Saʿīd, traced back to the Prophet: ‘Whoever hates ʿUmar has hated me, and whoever loves him has loved me; ʿUmar is with me wherever I settle, and I am with ʿUmar wherever he settles.’ He narrated from Muḥammad ibn