al-Hadhdhā’?’ Sufyān replied, ‘I never once heard ʿAmr say, “Suhayb al-Hadhdhā’.” He only ever said, “Suhayb, the client of ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿĀmir.”’”

I say: This is how it appears in my copy, which I transcribed from the al-Zāhiriyyah manuscript: (Hammād ibn Zayd). This should be verified, for the reliably preserved version has Hammād ibn Salamah. Asad ibn Mūsā said at the end of Kitāb al-Zuhd: “Hammād ibn Salamah narrated to us, from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, from Suhayb al-Hadhdhā’,” with the same report. Ahmad also recorded it (2/166, 197) through two other routes from Hammād ibn Salamah with the same chain.

Further supporting Sufyān’s version is that Shuʿbah corroborated him. Ahmad said: “Muhammad ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us: Shuʿbah narrated to us, from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, from Suhayb, the client of Ibn ʿĀmir,” with the same report.

Nevertheless, the narrations can be reconciled: he was both al-Hadhdhā’ and the client of Ibn ʿĀmir, and this is how the biographers described him. Allah knows best. Moreover, he is unknown, as no one besides ʿAmr ibn Dīnār narrated from him. Ibn al-Qattān and others said, “He is not known,” while al-Dhahabī said in al-Duʿafāʾ: “Unknown.” Thus, al-Hākim’s statement, “Its chain is authentic,” with which al-Dhahabī concurred, is an instance of the leniency for which they are known.

Indeed, the al-Dhahabī of Talkhīs al-Mustadrak is quite another man from the al-Dhahabī of al-Mīzān and his other valuable works!

I also found a corroborating report for this hadith, but it is extremely feeble. Al-Qudāʿī recorded it in his Musnad (fol. 44/2) through al-Sarī ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Sulamī, from Abū al-Jārūd, from al-Hasan, from Anas, traced back to the Prophet.

This chain is extremely weak. Abū al-Jārūd was Ziyād ibn al-Mundhir al-Aʿmā, whom Yahyā ibn Maʿīn declared a liar. Regarding al-Sarī ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Sulamī, al-Dhahabī said: “He is not known, and his reports are objectionable.” However, ʿĪsā ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Sulamī corroborated him in narrating it from Ziyād. This is how it appears in Ibn ʿAdī’s al-Kāmil (2/142), but I found no biographical entry for him. Perhaps (ʿĪsā) is a scribal corruption of (al-Sarī), since the rest of the name is identical!