that they may, at times, not have the biographical entry of certain transmitters readily available. They therefore do not permit themselves to omit the entire chain, for doing so would imply soundness—especially when the report is being cited as proof. Instead, they reproduce only that portion which requires examination. This is precisely what al-Ḥāfiẓ, may Allah have mercy on him, did here: it is as though he were pointing to the fact that Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān is alone in narrating from Mālik al-Dār, as Ibn Abī Ḥātim has already mentioned, thereby indicating the need to investigate the standing of this Mālik or, at the very least, hinting at his unknown status. Allah knows best.

This is a subtle art that only one who has practiced this discipline will appreciate. What I have concluded is supported by the remark of al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mundhirī, who in al-Targhīb 2/41–42 cited another account transmitted by Mālik al-Dār from ʿUmar and then said: “It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr; its transmitters up to Mālik al-Dār are well-known and trustworthy, but as for Mālik al-Dār, I do not know him.” Al-Haythamī said the same in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid 3/125.

The author of the book al-Tawassul (p. 241) overlooked this critical analysis, was taken in by the apparent wording of al-Ḥāfiẓ, and plainly declared the hadith authentic, excusing himself with the remark: “All it contains is: A man came….” He relied on the fact that the version naming the man as Bilāl ibn al-Ḥārith contains Sayf—whose condition you already know.

This, however, is of no real value, for the report is weak at the outset due to the unknown status of Mālik al-Dār, as we have explained.

Second: it contradicts what is firmly established in the Sacred Law concerning the recommendation of performing the rain-seeking prayer (ṣalāt al-istisqāʾ) in order to bring down rain from the sky, as has been related in numerous hadiths and adopted by the vast majority of the imams; indeed, it even runs counter to what the verse indicates