Wakīʿ likewise corroborated him, transmitting the report from al-Shaʿīthī by way of the first chain and treating it as a report traced back to the Prophet. We have already cited from al-Taʿjīl that al-Mizzī said: “Wakīʿ narrated it from al-Shaʿīthī but did not raise it, and I have not been able to locate that version today.”

Al-Ḥākim passed over the ḥadith without comment, and it was omitted from al-Dhahabī’s Talkhīṣ. In the biography of Zufar ibn Wathīmah in al-Mīzān, however, al-Dhahabī remarks after quoting the narration: “ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq judged it weak—meaning the ḥadith itself—and Ibn al-Qaṭṭān said: its flaw is the anonymity of Zufar, for only Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Shaʿīthī reports from him. I add: Ibn Maʿīn and Duḥaym declared him reliable.”

The ḥāfiẓ’s own assessment is inconsistent. In Bulūgh al-Marām he writes, “Its chain is weak,” whereas in the Talkhīṣ he says, “There is no problem with its isnād.”

In my estimation the ḥadith is hasan, since the narration of al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān corroborates that of Zufar ibn Wathīmah, each lending strength to the other. Al-Mirqāh likewise states, “It is hasan, as some ḥuffāẓ have indicated.”

Indeed, the report may even rise to the rank of ṣaḥīḥ li-ghayrihi (sound by virtue of supporting evidence) in view of its corroborating witnesses, among them the marfūʿ narration from Ibn ʿAbbās: “Legal punishments are not to be carried out in the mosque, nor is a father executed for (killing) his child.” This was recorded by al-Tirmidhī, al-Dārimī, and Ibn Mājah.