“Unknown.’ That is al-Husaynī’s verdict. On another occasion he said, ‘No one knows who he is’—the very wording of al-Dhahabī in al-Mīzān. Ibn Ḥibbān, however, listed him among the Trustworthy and even cited his report in his Ṣaḥīḥ. I have read, in the autograph of al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī: ‘It is possible that he is Khālid ibn Salamah.’

I say: That is improbable, for Khālid was a Makhzūmī, whereas this narrator is a Juhanī.”

I further say: What al-Ḥāfiẓ considered far-fetched is indeed the correct view, as will be shown, and Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir—may Allah have mercy on him—agreed with this in his commentary on the Musnad (5/267), adding:

“Closer to the truth in my estimation is that he is Mūsā ibn ʿAbd Allāh—or Ibn ʿAbd—al-Juhanī, whose kunya is Abū Salamah, for he belongs to that very generation.”

I say: The conclusion at which the Shaykh finally settled is precisely the one I affirm, in light of the evidence he cited together with an additional point: Mūsā al-Juhanī transmitted another ḥadith from al-Qāsim ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān with this same chain—the ḥadith immediately preceding the present one. When the two reports are set side by side, it becomes clear that the narrator from al-Qāsim is Mūsā Abū Salamah al-Juhanī; and among the narrators there is no one named Mūsā al-Juhanī except Mūsā ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Juhanī, whose kunya is Abū Salamah, and he is trustworthy—one of the narrators cited by Muslim. It is as though al-Ḥākim—may Allah have mercy on him—hinted at this fact when he declared the ḥadith “authentic according to the criteria of Muslim,” for that means its transmitters are those employed by Muslim, among whom is Abū Salamah al-Juhanī; and that can only be so if he is Mūsā ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Juhanī. Grasp this conclusion well, for you will not find it elsewhere. All praise is due to Allah for His enabling grace.