However, it has a corroborating report in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, through an authentic chain from him; its documentation has already been given under no. 1735. It is therefore authentic on that basis.

1794 — “Deliberation is called for in all things except deeds for the Hereafter.”

It was narrated by Abu Dawud (no. 4810), al-Hakim (1/62), and al-Bayhaqi in al-Zuhd (88/1), through al-A'mash, from Malik ibn al-Harith—from Mus'ab ibn Sa'd, from his father. Abu Dawud added that al-A'mash said: “I heard them mentioning it from Mus'ab.” Al-A'mash said: “I know it only as being from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.”

Al-Hakim said: “Authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim.” Al-Dhahabi agreed with him.

I say: There is room for consideration here, for this Malik—al-Sulami al-Raqqi—was narrated from by al-Bukhari only in al-Adab al-Mufrad. Thus, it meets Muslim’s criterion alone.

I say: Al-Mundhiri declared it defective in al-Targhib on grounds that do not undermine it. He said (4/134): “Al-A'mash did not mention who related it to him, nor did he state definitively that it was traced back to the Prophet.”

I say: As for his not stating definitively that it was traced back to the Prophet, a preponderant likelihood is sufficient in this case, and this is apparent from his words: “I know it only as being from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.” As for his not mentioning who related it to him, this is an evident ground for criticism, based on the fact that al-A'mash practised tadlis (concealment in transmission) and did not explicitly state that he heard it. However, the scholars have accepted al-A'mash’s reports transmitted with the formula “from” unless a break in their chains is evident. Al-Dhahabi said in his biography in al-Mizan: “Whenever he says, ‘from,’ the possibility of concealment in transmission arises, except when reporting from teachers from whom he narrated extensively, such as Ibrahim, Abu Wa'il, and Abu Salih al-Samman; his reports from this class are understood to be connected.” The point established by his statement is only that criticizing al-A'mash’s reports merely because of their use of the formula “from” is not absolute,