Al-Bayhaqī identified another hidden defect in it, saying: “Maḥmūd ibn Khālid narrated it from al-Walīd, from Ibn Jurayj, from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, from his grandfather, from the Prophet, without mentioning his father.” This is what he said, though it may have been a version that came to him. Otherwise, al-Nasāʾī narrated it from him in the same manner as the group narrated it from al-Walīd, stating immediately afterward: “Maḥmūd ibn Khālid informed us: al-Walīd narrated to us from Ibn Jurayj, from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, from his father, from his grandfather, exactly the same.”

As for al-Dāraquṭnī, he identified another defect in it, saying: “No one narrated it with a connected chain from Ibn Jurayj except al-Walīd ibn Muslim. Others narrate it from Ibn Jurayj, from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, as a mursal report from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.”

I say: That does not impair it, for al-Walīd was a trustworthy memorizer. The only defect is the ambiguous transmission formula, as we have explained.

The hadith also has a supporting report through ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, who said: “Some members of the delegation that came to my father narrated to me that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘Any physician who treats a people without having previously been known to practise medicine, and causes them harm, is liable.’”

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz said: “This does not mean mere harm; rather, it refers to cutting veins, lancing, and cauterization.”

I say: Its chain is good, were it not mursal and for the unknown identity of the one who narrated it. Yet the hadith is good when the two chains are considered together. And Allah knows best.

636 — “I pledge allegiance to you on the condition that you worship Allah, establish the prayer, give zakah, offer sincere counsel to the Muslims, and part company with the polytheist.”

It was narrated by al-Nasāʾī (2/183), al-Bayhaqī (9/13), and Aḥmad (4/365).