Ibn Jurayj was more retentive than Maʿmar, so the connected version is preferable, were it not for the ambiguous use of “from” in its chain. Nevertheless, the hadith is authentic in view of its corroborating reports. Among them is the narration of ʿĀʾishah, may Allah be pleased with her, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Those who cut down lote trees will have the Fire poured copiously over their heads.”

Al-Ṭaḥāwī (4/117), al-Khaṭīb in al-Muwaḍḍiḥ (1/38–39), and al-Bayhaqī (6/140) transmitted it through two routes from Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ, who said: Muḥammad ibn Sharīk narrated to us from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, from ʿAmr ibn Aws, from ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr, from her.

I say: Its chain of transmission is authentic. Its narrators are trustworthy and are all narrators of the two Shaykhs, apart from Muḥammad ibn Sharīk, who is also trustworthy. As for al-Bayhaqī’s criticism, which he related from Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥāfiẓ, who said: “I do not think that he accurately retained it from Wakīʿ, and they criticized him”—meaning al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Shaybah—“whereas the preserved narration is that of Abū Aḥmad al-Zubayrī and those who followed his narration from Muḥammad ibn Sharīk, from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, from ʿAmr ibn Aws, from ʿUrwah: that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said it,” as a mursal report.

I say: This criticism is not damaging, for al-Qāsim was not alone in narrating it from Wakīʿ; rather, Mulayḥ ibn Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ corroborated him, as we indicated, and he is trustworthy. Therefore, after relating al-Dāraquṭnī’s statement, “Wakīʿ alone narrated it from Muḥammad ibn Sharīk, and Mulayḥ alone narrated it from him,” al-Khaṭīb said: “I say: Al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Shaybah likewise narrated it from Wakīʿ.”

Al-Khaṭīb then said: “Abū Muʿāwiyah narrated it from Abū ʿUthmān Muḥammad ibn Sharīk as a mursal report, without mentioning ʿĀʾishah. He informed us …”

I say: From what we have mentioned, it appears that the soundest report from Muḥammad ibn Sharīk is the mursal one. Yet its chain of transmission is authentic, so in any case it constitutes strong corroborating evidence for the hadith under discussion, especially since Ibn Sharīk was corroborated in reporting it with a connected chain,