the biographical entry of Sayyar Abu al-Hakam. Al-Mizzi stated that Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al-Thiqat. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar then said: “I have not found any mention of Abu Hamzah in Ibn Hibban’s al-Thiqat, so this requires investigation.” I say: Ibn Hibban does mention him among the Followers of the Followers, shortly before the biographical entry of Sayyar Abu al-Hakam (6/421—Indian edition). Al-Bukhari likewise gave his biographical entry in al-Tarikh al-Kabir (2/2/160), as did Ibn Abi Hatim (2/1/255).

The former is trustworthy and among the narrators of the two Shaykhs, whereas the latter was declared trustworthy by no one other than Ibn Hibban, though a number of people narrated from him. Yet we have found no proof for the claim that he was the narrator of this hadith, despite the explicit statement of the one who narrated from him—Bashir ibn Salman—that he was Sayyar Abu al-Hakam, apart from the mere assertion that he erred in this and that the correct identification is Sayyar Abu Hamzah. Even if we were to grant this, the chain of transmission would not fall below the rank of good, in view of Ibn Hibban’s declaring him trustworthy and the fact that a number of people narrated from him.

Al-Haythami cited the hadith in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (7/329), through Ahmad in its entirety and through al-Bazzar in part, then said: “The narrators of both are narrators of the Sahih collections.”

A point of benefit: In al-Majma‘, “knowledge” appears in place of “the pen.” This is apparently a textual corruption. The correct wording is that found in al-Musnad: “the pen,” as is confirmed by its wording in Jami‘ al-Masanid (27/166–167), and by the narration in al-Adab al-Mufrad in the Salafi, Taziyyah, and Indian editions, unlike the Jilaniyyah edition. This is not contradicted by al-Nasa’i’s addition or al-Dani’s narration, for it has the meaning of “the pen” or something close to it—especially since ‘Ali ibn Ma‘bad explained it by saying: “That is, the book,” meaning writing.