To sum up, the weight of evidence points to the narrator under discussion being al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, contrary to the ḥāfiẓ’s claim. Whether he was a Madinan or a Meccan, however, is something we have not been able to determine.

In the biographical notices of Tahdhīb we find: “ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, client of Banū Hāshim; he narrated from al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib and Abū Hurayrah, and Dāwūd ibn Abī Hind narrated from him.” The ḥāfiẓ writes in al-Taqrīb: “He is mastūr (of unknown standing).” I say: he is most likely the man we are dealing with, for he is of the same generation; Allah knows best.

Furthermore, al-Shaʿīthī has another teacher for this ḥadīth. Abū Dāwūd and al-Dāraquṭnī transmit it through Ṣadaqah ibn Khālid, while al-Ḥākim transmits it through Zuhayr ibn ʿAnīd; both chains go via Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Naḍarī, from Zufar ibn Wathīmah, from Ḥakīm ibn Ḥizām, who said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade retaliation being exacted in the mosque, the ḥudūd being carried out there, and poetry being recited in it.”

Hajjāj, however, diverged from them, saying: “Al-Shaʿīthī narrated to us from Zufar ibn Wathīmah,” presenting the report as mawqūf on Ḥakīm. Aḥmad recorded this path and remarked, “He did not raise it”—meaning Hajjāj.

I say: Ṣadaqah ibn Khālid is reliable—al-Bukhārī cited him as evidence—and he transmitted the report as marfūʿ. This addition must be accepted, especially since he is corroborated by Zuhayr ibn Hunayd, who is deemed acceptable in al-Taqrīb.