a sound, well-preserved original version, likewise narrated by Hishām from his father, from ʿĀʾishah. He cited it through the route of this al-Marwazī, from Ibn ʿUyaynah, from Hishām, with the same chain. The Ḥāfiẓ then said: “Both are preserved.” He mentioned it to al-Ḥākim Abū ʿAbd Allāh at the latter’s request. Al-Khalīlī said: “Al-Ḥākim found it excellent and approved of it.” This is strong evidence that al-Marwazī was regarded by both of them as a trustworthy narrator whose reports could be used as proof. Had that not been so, they would have attributed error to him, since his narration from Ibn ʿUyaynah differed from the other routes in having the chain through ʿUrwah, from ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her).

What further confirms this is that it has also been narrated through other routes from ʿUrwah, from her, by Muslim (8/60–61), al-Ṭaḥāwī in al-Mushkil (1/127), al-Bazzār (1/123/233), and al-Khaṭīb in al-Tārīkh (5/313). This is the first matter indicating that this al-Marwazī was trustworthy and authoritative.

The other matter is that, at the conclusion of this hadith documentation, I mentioned that al-Dhahabī (may Allah have mercy on him) authenticated the chain of transmission of the hadith through this al-Marwazī. The brother whose objection I am addressing knows this, for he attributed the hadith to al-Dhahabī in al-Siyar, in the very same volume and page previously cited. I wonder what induces these young, aspiring researchers to disregard the judgments of the hadith masters when those judgments differ from their own. Of course, I do not mean that they should imitate them blindly; rather, they should appreciate their efforts, knowledge, and mastery in this field, so that, at the very least, they do not rush to issue judgments that contradict theirs. This is a reminder, and “the reminder benefits the believers.”

Here a question arises—as they say nowadays: Why did the esteemed brother conceal the authentication