“I say: Khālid was a fabricator.”

I say: But he was not alone in narrating it, as will follow. Al-ʿUqaylī said: “It has no basis among al-Thawrī’s reports. Muḥammad ibn Kathīr al-Ṣanʿānī corroborated him, but perhaps he took it from him and concealed this in transmission, since Khālid is the one famously associated with this report.”

I say: This corroborating narration was transmitted by al-Khalʿī in al-Fawāʾid (18/67/1) and by Ibn ʿAdī, who said: “I do not know what to say regarding Ibn Kathīr’s narration from al-Thawrī of this hadith. Ibn Kathīr is trustworthy, yet this hadith from al-Thawrī is rejected.” Abū Qatādah also corroborated him, saying: “Sufyān narrated it to us.” It was transmitted by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Maqdisī in al-Muntaqā min Ḥadīth Abī ʿAlī al-Awqī (3/2).

I say: But regarding Abū Qatādah—who was ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wāqid al-Ḥarrānī—al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “Abandoned. Aḥmad used to praise him, but said: ‘Perhaps he grew old and became confused’; and he practised concealment in transmission.”

I say: It is therefore highly probable that he received it from Khālid ibn ʿAmr and then concealed this in transmission, just as Ibn ʿAdī said concerning Ibn Kathīr’s corroborating narration. However, his statement concerning Ibn Kathīr—that he was trustworthy—is open to question. A number of imams declared him weak, including Imam Aḥmad, as Ibn ʿAdī himself relates from him in his entry in al-Kāmil (370/2). He then concluded it by saying: “He has hadiths in which no one corroborates him.” So how could someone like him be considered trustworthy by Ibn ʿAdī? It seems that he confused him with Muḥammad ibn Kathīr al-ʿAbdī, for he