did not lie, Allah knows best whether he deliberately lied or not. Yet he undoubtedly transmitted reports from liars known for their lying. Al-Bukhārī narrates from him only reports whose authenticity is established through other chains, while Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrated nothing from him.

The compiler said:
“There are also versions of this report narrated from Fātimah besides those we have already presented (1).”

He then narrated it through an obscure chain, whose falsity is apparent to anyone with knowledge of hadith. He transmitted it through Abū Hafs al-Kattānī (2): Muhammad ibn ‘Umar (3), the judge—namely, al-Ja‘‘ānī—narrated to us; Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Ja‘far al-‘Askarī narrated to us from the original manuscript of his book; Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yazīd ibn Sulaym narrated to us; Khalaf ibn Sālim narrated to us; ‘Abd al-Razzāq narrated to us; Sufyān al-Thawrī narrated to us, from Ash‘ath ibn Abī al-Sha‘thā’, from his mother, from Fātimah, from Asmā’, who reported:
“The Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—supplicated for ‘Alī until the sun was brought back for him.”

Such a report can be accepted only from someone whose integrity and accuracy in transmission are established, not from someone whose standing is unknown. How, then, could it be accepted when hadith scholars know that neither al-Thawrī nor ‘Abd al-Razzāq narrated it? The hadiths of al-Thawrī and ‘Abd al-Razzāq are known to hadith scholars, and they have students who know them. Khalaf ibn Sālim narrated it. Even supposing that they did narrate it, Ash‘ath’s mother is unknown, and nothing can be established on the strength of her narration.

He mentioned a second chain through Muhammad ibn Marzūq: Husayn al-Ashqar narrated to us, from ‘Alī ibn Hāshim, from ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Dīnār, from