find that another dependable authority has neither authenticated nor graded weak, we rule it ḥasan unless a defect appears that necessitates deeming it weak. A similar judgment applies to the Ṣaḥīḥ of Abū Ḥātim Ibn Ḥibbān. Allah knows best.

Third: The works produced as “extracts” from the two Ṣaḥīḥs do not obligate themselves to preserve the exact wording found in them; consequently, variations in wording and meaning occur. The same is true of what al-Bayhaqī, al-Baghawī, and others transmit while saying, “Narrated by al-Bukhārī” or “by Muslim”; in some instances the meaning differs. Their intent is only that the basic narration exists in those two collections. Therefore, it is impermissible to quote a ḥadīth from such derivative works and then assert, “This is exactly how it appears in the two Ṣaḥīḥs,” unless you have compared it with both originals, or the author explicitly says, “The two of them narrated it in these very words.” This is unlike the abridgments of the two Ṣaḥīḥs, whose compilers transferred their precise wording. The derivative collections offer two benefits: a higher chain of transmission and additional authentic material, for those additions are sound by virtue of being connected to their chains.

Fourth: Whatever the two Imāms transmit with an uninterrupted chain is unquestionably authentic. As for reports in which they have omitted one or more names at the beginning of the chain, then if the narration is introduced with decisive wording such as “he said” or “he did,”