his Tafsir (14/18), al-Hakim (2/353), and al-Bayhaqi as well, through other routes from Nuh ibn Qays, with the same report. Al-Hakim said: “Its chain of transmission is authentic. ʿAmr ibn ʿAli said: ‘No one has criticized Nuh ibn Qays al-Tahi on valid grounds.’” Al-Dhahabi concurred, saying: “He is truthful; Muslim narrated from him.” In al-Mizan, he said: “His standing is acceptable.”

I say: Neither he nor al-Hafiz, in al-Tahdhib, related from any of the imams a weakening of him, except for a report from Ibn Maʿin. This report is itself unauthentic, for Abu Dawud said: “It reached me that Yahya declared him weak.” Moreover, it is contradicted by the report of ʿUthman al-Darimi from him that he was trustworthy. This latter report is authentic, and it accords with the statement of Ahmad and the rest of the imams who deemed him trustworthy. It is therefore the principal evidence.

Now that you know this, the hadith was declared defective on the grounds of a broken chain, for al-Tirmidhi said after it: “Jaʿfar ibn Sulayman narrated this hadith from ʿAmr ibn Malik, from Abu al-Jawzaʾ, in similar wording, but he did not mention ‘from Ibn ʿAbbas.’ This is more likely to be sounder than Nuh’s hadith.” Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir relied upon this in his Tafsir (5/12–13), saying: “It is a highly singular hadith, containing severe objectionability.”

In my view, this alleged defect carries no weight, for several reasons. First, Jaʿfar ibn Sulayman’s narrating the hadith with a broken chain, and his differing from Nuh ibn Qays, does not impair it. Even if he had equaled Nuh in trustworthiness, the well-known principle of hadith terminology would apply here: an addition by a trustworthy narrator is accepted. How then, when he is less trustworthy than Nuh? Although Muslim narrated from him, more than one of the imams declared him weak, including al-Bukhari, who said: