as requiring corroboration. This is something we have gleaned from al-Ḥāfiẓ’s own remarks in the Introduction, so perhaps he did not recall it when he made that unqualified statement.

Moreover, Ibn al-Muthannā was not alone in transmitting the hadith, as shown by Qatādah’s corroborating narration through Ismāʿīl ibn Muslim—the Meccan Basran. Although he was weak, he was not accused of dishonesty; indeed, some explicitly stated that he used to make mistakes. Abū Ḥātim—who is counted among the stringent critics—said of him: “He is not abandoned; his hadith may be recorded.” That is, it may be used for corroboration and supporting evidence. Ibn Saʿd said: “He had independent judgment and gave legal opinions, and he possessed insight into and retention of hadith. I used to write from him because of his distinction.”

I say: A narrator such as him may be cited in corroboration, and thus the hadith is strengthened through him. As for al-Ḥāfiẓ’s above-mentioned remark concerning him—“Perhaps he appropriated it from Ibn al-Muḥarrar”—it is refuted by the fact that no one accused him of hadith theft, despite all that was said in criticism of him. And Allah knows best.

From the foregoing, it becomes clear to you that the other route from Qatādah, to which al-Bayhaqī referred in his earlier remarks while quoting al-Ḥāfiẓ in al-Talkhīṣ—where he said of it, “I have not seen it as a marfūʿ report (directly attributed to the Prophet)”—was subsequently found by him and mentioned in al-Fatḥ. It is this narration of Ismāʿīl. And with Allah lies success.

Once the foregoing investigation is understood, it becomes evident that al-Nawawī’s statement in al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab (8/431–432), “This hadith is false,” resulted from his issuing that judgment without examining the second route, the status of its narrator Ibn al-Muthannā in this particular narration, or the aforementioned corroborating narration. And Allah knows best. Al-Haythamī said in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid: