I say: What appears in the Yemeni manuscript matches exactly what Ibn al-Qayyim reproduced in Tahdhīb al-Sunan from Ibn Ḥazm and the critique he directed at him, where he said:

“Then he—meaning Ibn Ḥazm—narrated it through the route of ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAtāʾ al-Khuffāf … Ibn Ḥazm remarked: ‘ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAtāʾ’s reports are munkar (rejected), and Ismāʿīl is unknown.’ The matter, however, is not as Abū Muḥammad—that is, Ibn Ḥazm—claimed, for Ibn Maʿīn declared him reliable … Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad said: ‘The critics objected to al-Khuffāf for only one ḥadith that he related on the authority of Thawr ibn Yazīd, from Makḥūl, from Kurayb, from Ibn ʿAbbās concerning the virtue of al-ʿAbbās; they found nothing else objectionable in his narrations.’

As for Ismāʿīl, if he is Ismāʿīl ibn Rajāʾ ibn Rushd al-Zubaydī, then in the biography of Ibn Abī ʿUtbah (sic; the original is most likely Ibn Abī Ghaniyyah, as found in al-Muḥallā, although Ibn al-Qayyim likewise reads ‘ʿUtbah’ here—Allah knows best) it is stated that he narrated from this very Ismāʿīl, and he lists no other teacher bearing that name. Hence, he is trustworthy, and Muslim has recorded his ḥadith in the Ṣaḥīḥ. In conclusion, this particular exception clause—namely the additional wording cited earlier—is false and fabricated, inserted by one of the extremist Shīʿah, and Ibn Mājah did not include it in the ḥadith.”

To summarise: Ibn Ḥazm expressed leniency only toward ʿAtāʾ ibn Muslim al-Khuffāf, as his own words quoted above clearly show. Ibn al-Qayyim assumed that he was referring to ʿAtāʾ’s son, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAtāʾ, and thus set out to rebut Ibn Ḥazm, citing the statements of the leading critics who praised the son. Without doubt the son’s standing is stronger than that of his father, as a review of the scholars’ assessments of the two men will confirm. And in al-Taqrīb: