said: “It is written …” The rest of the hadith. This is how it appears in al-Mustadrak, whereas Ibn ʿAsākir has: “ʿĀʾishah said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘It is written …’” Perhaps the former is correct.

Al-Ḥākim said: “Authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhārī and Muslim,” and al-Dhahabī concurred with him. However, this is open to objection on two grounds:

First, none of its narrators was cited by al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ as an authority.

Second, Muslim did not narrate from Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbār either. It has been said that he was only among the narrators cited by Abū Dāwūd. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said of him: “Weak, though his transmission of the Sīrah is sound.”

I say: By “the Sīrah,” he means this work, The Campaigns of Yūnus ibn Bukayr, as is evident from his biographical notice in al-Tahdhīb. That notice contains what indicates that he was truthful, though weak in retention. This is the conclusion reached by al-Ḥāfiẓ through independent evaluation, for he said in al-Taqrīb: “Truthful, but makes mistakes.”

This perhaps does not conflict with al-Dhahabī’s statement in al-Mīzān: “Muslim narrated from Yūnus in supporting reports, not in the primary chains; al-Bukhārī likewise mentioned him as corroboration. His hadith is good.” This is further supported by Ibn Ḥibbān’s statement in al-Thiqāt (8/45): “Our companions narrated from him. He would sometimes differ from others, but I have not seen anything in his hadith that would require one to depart from the way of upright narrators for the manner of discredited narrators.”

Yūnus ibn ʿAmr is Yūnus ibn Abī Isḥāq, namely ʿAmr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī. He was truthful and made occasional errors, as al-Ḥāfiẓ stated.

In sum, the assertion of al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī that the hadith is authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhārī and Muslim is a mistake.