“It is understood from Shaykh Nāṣir’s words that the hadith is weak because of al-Walīd ibn Muslim’s concealment in transmission, but this is not so, for al-Walīd explicitly stated that he had heard it...” I say: they—or he—were ignorant that al-Walīd’s concealment in transmission was of the type known as tadlīs al-taswiyah, for which his own explicit statement of transmission from his shaykh is of no benefit. Rather, every narrator above him must explicitly state transmission from his own shaykh, and so on. So take heed, O people of insight.

2657 — “When Jaʿfar returned from Abyssinia, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, embraced him.”

Abū Yaʿlā recorded it in his Musnad (3/398/1876) through Ismāʿīl ibn Mujālid, from his father, from ʿĀmir, from Jābir, who related it. I say: this chain of transmission is a candidate for classification as ḥasan. Mujālid—namely, Ibn Saʿīd—is not strong, and al-Haythamī identified this as its defect, saying (9/272): “...He is weak, though he has been declared trustworthy; and all its remaining narrators are narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ collections.”

I say: however, although this Ismāʿīl is among al-Bukhārī’s narrators, some critics spoke about him on account of his memory. Al-Dhahabī said in al-Kāshif: “Truthful.” Al-Ḥāfiẓ likewise said in al-Taqrīb, adding: “He makes mistakes.” I say: this is more correct. A narrator of this kind occupies a middle position, and his hadith may range between being ḥasan li-dhātihi—fair in its own right—and ḥasan li-ghayrihi—fair by corroboration. If he is supported by another narrator, the researcher will not hesitate to classify it as ḥasan. This is the case here, for he was corroborated by one of comparable standing, or near to it: Asad ibn ʿAmr, from Mujālid ibn Saʿīd, with the same report. Al-Ṭaḥāwī recorded it in Sharḥ al-Maʿānī (4/281).