the objection based on it being mawqūf is dispelled, and it becomes clear that its chain of transmission is good. Its narrators in Abū Dāwūd’s version are trustworthy and are narrators of the two Ṣaḥīḥs, apart from Abān ibn ʿAbd Allāh, who was al-Bajalī of Kūfah. His hadith is good, as al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb: “Truthful, though his retention has some weakness.” Abū Tawbah, whose name was al-Rabīʿ ibn Nāfiʿ, is Abū Dāwūd’s shaykh in al-Marāsīl (folio 4/2). Wakīʿ also corroborated him, narrating from Abān ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Bajalī, from ʿAdī ibn Thābit, who said: he then cited it as a mursal report. You have already known the answer to this. Ibn Abī Shaybah transmitted it in al-Muṣannaf (2/117, Indian edition).

Al-Haytham ibn Jamīl differed, saying: Ibn al-Mubārak narrated to us from Abān ibn Taghlib, from ʿAdī ibn Thābit, from his father, who said: he then cited it. Ibn Mājah transmitted it (1/349). Al-Būṣīrī said in his Zawāʾid (folio 72/2): “This is a chain whose narrators are trustworthy, except that it is mursal.” I say: Although this al-Haytham was a ḥāfiẓ, Ibn ʿAdī said of him: “He makes mistakes concerning reliable narrators.” It therefore appears that he erred in two places in Ibn al-Mubārak’s chain: he mentioned Abān ibn Taghlib in place of Abān ibn ʿAbd Allāh, and said, “from ʿAdī ibn Thābit, from his father,” thus adding “from his father.” All of this is erroneous and contradicts Abū Tawbah’s narration from Ibn al-Mubārak and Wakīʿ’s narration from Abān ibn ʿAbd Allāh.

Secondly, Muḥammad ibn al-Fuḍayl ibn ʿAṭiyyah said: from Manṣūr, from Ibrāhīm, from ʿAlqamah, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, who said: “When the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, had taken his place upon the pulpit, we would turn our faces towards him.”