I say: al-Dhahabī concurred with him. However, this is open to question, as is shown by al-Tirmidhī’s statement immediately afterward: “The hadith of ʿĀʾishah is not established, and nothing concerning this matter is authentic from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. They say that Abū Muʿādh is Sulaymān ibn Arqam, and he is weak in the view of the hadith scholars.”

I say: This is correct: this Abū Muʿādh is Sulaymān ibn Arqam, not—as al-Ḥākim claimed—al-Fuḍayl ibn Maysarah. This is supported by two points. First, it is Ibn Arqam whom they mention in his biographical entry as having narrated from al-Zuhrī, and from whom Zayd ibn al-Ḥubāb narrated. They did not mention this in Ibn Maysarah’s biographical entry. Second, Ibn ʿAdī cited it only in the biographical entry of Sulaymān ibn Arqam. For this reason, al-Bayhaqī stated decisively that he was the one in question, saying: “He is abandoned.”

He then cited the second chain: from Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq. It was reported by Ibn ʿAlīk al-Naysābūrī in al-Fawāʾid (239/1), and by al-Bayhaqī, through Abū al-ʿAynāʾ Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim, who said: Abū Zayd Saʿīd ibn Aws narrated to us; Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ narrated to us, from Anas ibn Mālik, from him.

I say: This chain of transmission is very weak. This Abū al-ʿAynāʾ admitted that he and al-Jāḥiẓ fabricated the hadith of Fadak. Al-Dāraquṭnī declared him weak. Al-Bayhaqī said: “Its chain of transmission is not strong. Rather, Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ narrated it only from Iyās ibn Jaʿfar, that a man related it to him,” and he then mentioned the hadith. He then cited its chain through ʿAbd al-Wārith, from Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ, in mursal form, and said: “This is what has been reliably preserved from the hadith of ʿAbd al-Wārith.” He then narrated it through Abū Maʿmar ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, who said: “I asked ʿAbd al-Wārith about the hadith