Ibn Sayyid al-Nas said, “By my life, ranking the report as ḥasan is the least that can be assigned to it, given the reliability of its transmitters and the existence of outside corroborations.”

Even this, however, is open to critique, for those so-called corroborations are not genuine corroborations at all: every one of them ultimately rests on Jassarah, as has already been shown. The ḥadith has never come to us through any acceptable path that bypasses her; had such a route existed, we would have adopted it.

True, Ibn Ḥazm did cite the narration through the isnād of Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Zubālah → Sufyān ibn Ḥamzah → Kathīr ibn Zayd → al-Muṭṭalib ibn ʿAbd Allāh, stating that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ allowed no one to sit in the mosque or even pass through it while in a state of major ritual impurity except ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

He then added: “Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan is accused of fabrication, and Kathīr ibn Zayd is the same.”

Such is what he wrote, yet Kathīr ibn Zayd al-Aslamī al-Sahmī has not sunk to that level, nor has he been charged with lying. Rather, opinion about him is divided: some declared him trustworthy, others rated him weak. In al-Taqrīb Ibn Ḥajar says, “Reliable but prone to error.” Concerning Ibn Zubālah he writes, “They deemed him a liar.” He, therefore, is the chief defect in the chain.

As for al-Muṭṭalib ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Makhzūmī, he is well-known for excessive tadlīs and broken chains (irṣāl), as al-Ḥāfiẓ noted, so the report is also mursal.