in the first cited passage. It is undoubtedly not part of Ghundar’s hadith, for Ahmad likewise narrated it from him. It is therefore an anomalous addition attributed to Shuʿbah, since it conflicts with the narration of a number of trustworthy transmitters from him and with Hushaym’s corroborating narration, as stated above. Perhaps it was inserted by one of the copyists. It is, however, established in the hadiths of Ibn ʿAmr and Abu Malik, as I mentioned there in my commentary on al-Kalim al-Tayyib (p. 33); its documentation will also follow under no. 2763.

I also found another route for it: Layth narrated from Mujahid, who said that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq said ... and then mentioned something similar, including the addition. Ahmad recorded it (1/14). I say: It is mursal, and Layth—namely, Ibn Abi Sulaym—is weak.

Another note: The phrase, “Lord of all things and their Sovereign,” has been corrupted into the utterly anomalous wording, “Everything is in Your two palms.” This is how it appears in every edition of al-Adab al-Mufrad that I have consulted, including the Indian edition, which is the most accurate of them. It likewise appears in the text of Shaykh Fadl Allah al-Jilani’s commentary. It is undoubtedly an error by one of the copyists of al-Adab, since it contradicts all the previously cited sources for the hadith, including The Acts of the Servants by al-Bukhari, the author of al-Adab. This leaves not the slightest doubt that it is erroneous.

This is among the hadiths that Hissan al-Haddam declared weak without any proof or evidence. He was not satisfied with the authentication of those mentioned above, or of others whom we have not cited here; rather, he timidly limited himself to calling it good, while casting doubt upon it with his words: “A good hadith, if Allah Most High wills.” He has frequently employed such doubt regarding many authentic hadiths in his documentation of Ibn al-Qayyim’s Ighathat al-Lahfan. He also concealed the authenticity of the hadith of Ibn ʿAmr. I have explained all of this in my refutation of him, no. 29.