I say: It is as they both said, were it not for the disagreement over whether al-Muṭṭalib heard from ʿĀʾishah. Abū Ḥātim said: “His narration from her is mursal (disconnected), and he did not live to meet her.” Abū Zurʿah said: “We hope that he heard from her.” In any case, however, the hadith is authentic in light of what has preceded. I have also found another connected chain from her: Ibn ʿAdī recorded it in al-Kāmil (149/1) through al-Yamān ibn ʿAdī, who narrated to us from Zuhayr ibn Muḥammad, from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, from al-Qāsim, from her, with the same wording. He said: “I know of no one besides al-Yamān who narrates it from Zuhayr.”

I say: Both of them have some weakness, though not severe; thus, there is no objection to using their hadith as supporting evidence.

Note: In Zawāʾid al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr and al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr (2/167/1), al-Suyūṭī attributed the hadith to Aḥmad and al-Ḥākim. Yet I have not found it in al-Musnad, so I fear that the abbreviation for Aḥmad was a corruption of that for Abū Dāwūd, since he did not attribute it to Abū Dāwūd. And Allah knows best.

The hadith also has corroborating reports, including that which Muḥammad ibn Makhlad al-ʿAṭṭār recorded in al-Muntaqā min Ḥadīthihi (2/8/1), through Abū Bakr al-Nahshalī, from ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿAmmār, from Ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, with the same wording.

I say: I have not identified ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿAmmār. It is possible that “Ibn ʿAmmār” was originally “Ibn ʿUmayr,” but was corrupted by the copyist, for Ibn ʿUmayr was from Kūfah, as was the narrator from him, Abū Bakr al-Nahshalī, and both were reliable.