al-Sunan—even in the edition revised by the jurist Aḥmad Shākir—but that, in fact, is an error. The correct reading is al-Ḥasan ibn Bakr, omitting the word “Abī.” This is how his name is given in the biographical references Tahdhīb, Taqrīb, and Khulāṣah.
He is al-Ḥasan ibn Bakr ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Marwazī, Abū ʿAlī, who resided in Mecca. Maslamah graded him “unknown” (majhūl), as Taqrīb records.
In the same entry Ibn Ḥajar lists a number of trustworthy transmitters who narrated from him, and perhaps for that reason he concludes in Taqrīb that “he is reliable (ṣadūq).” Allah knows best.
To sum up: with these two chains the ḥadīth is ḥasan, and it becomes ṣaḥīḥ by virtue of its corroborating report from Ibn ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with him—which itself has two lines of transmission:
- Yazīd ibn Hārūn said, “Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Mujbir informed us, from Nāfiʿ, from him,” as a marfūʿ report. This version was recorded by al-Dāraquṭnī, by al-Ḥākim, and by al-Bayhaqī through al-Ḥākim. Al-Ḥākim declared it “authentic, and Ibn al-Mujbir is trustworthy,” a judgment with which al-Dhahabī concurred.
This, however, is remarkable, for al-Dhahabī himself placed Ibn al-Mujbir in al-Mīzān, citing the leading authorities who deemed him weak, without mentioning a single opinion affirming his reliability; and al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar endorsed that evaluation in