were accepted as authorities by both of the two Shaykhs. Concerning the first, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar says in al-Taqrīb: “Trustworthy, an evidentiary authority (ḥujjah); he was criticized, but with nothing damaging.” As for the other, he says: “Truthful, yet he makes mistakes.” For that reason al-Dhahabī listed him in al-Mīzān and in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, whereas he did not list the first.

Second: Ibrāhīm’s version contains an addition in both the chain of transmission and the text of the ḥadith, and the addition supplied by a trustworthy narrator is accepted, as is well known.

He is, in general, corroborated by Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir, who reports from Abū Bakr ibn Sulaymān the same incident in abridged form, yet differs in the chain. He says:

“From Ḥafṣah: the Prophet ﷺ entered upon her while a woman called al-Shifāʾ was with her, performing ruqyah for namlah (a particular skin condition). The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Teach it to Ḥafṣah.’”

Thus he made the ḥadith part of Ḥafṣah’s musnad, not that of al-Shifāʾ.

It was recorded by Aḥmad (6/286), al-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Ḥākim (4/414), and Abū Nuʿaym in al-Ṭibb (2/28/2), all through Sufyān from Ibn al-Munkadir.

Al-Ḥākim said, “Its chain is authentic,” and al-Dhahabī concurred.

I say: This, too, is as they stated, and the discrepancy mentioned—Allah willing—does no harm, for it is quite possible that Ḥafṣah narrated it just as al-Shifāʾ did, since the incident occurred in the presence of them both. Consequently, Abū Bakr ibn Sulaymān would at times relate it from this one and at times from that one. Nevertheless, al-Sakhāwī observed that there is a variance concerning Sufyān as to whether the report is connected or mursal.