“This is a momentous hadith; the narrators in its chain of transmission are trustworthy.”

I say: Shihab ibn Khirash has been subject to some criticism, as al-Hafiz indicated in al-Taqrib: “Truthful, but makes mistakes.” Al-Dhahabi said in al-Kashif: “A group of scholars declared him trustworthy. Ibn al-Mahdi said: ‘I have not seen anyone who describes the Sunnah more aptly than he does.’ Ibn ‘Adi said: ‘Some of his reports are objectionable.’”

I say: Thus, his hadith is good, if Allah wills. Ibn al-Jazari cited it as evidence for the obligatory connected elongation, stating that shortening it is not permissible according to any of the Quran reciters. Refer to it if you wish.

Note: In al-Kabir, the wording appears as fa-maddadahā (“then he elongated it”); in al-Nashr, as fa-muddūhā (“then elongate it”); and in al-Majma‘, as fa-maddadūhā (“then they elongated it”). Perhaps what I have recorded is correct.

2238 — “Among the signs of the Hour are obscenity, deliberate indecency, severing ties of kinship, entrusting the treacherous—and, I believe, he said: accusing the trustworthy of treachery.”

Al-Bazzar recorded it (p. 238, his Zawa’id) through Shabib ibn Bishr, from Anas ibn Malik, attributed to the Prophet. I say: This is a good chain of transmission. Its narrators are trustworthy, apart from Shabib ibn Bishr, concerning whom there is some criticism; but the stronger view is that his hadith is good. For this reason, the author of Zawa’id al-Bazzar said: “Good.” And in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (7/327), he said: