so, with its supporting narrations, it is unobjectionable, Allah willing. Aḥmad Shākir even graded it authentic in his annotated edition of the Musnad.

As for the ḥadīth of Abū Bakrah, its transmitters are likewise trustworthy and are drawn from the narrators of the two Shaykhs, except for Abū ʿAbdullāh, the client of the family of Abū Burdah. His standing is the same as that of Abū al-Khaṣīb: Ibn Abī Ḥātim also cites him (4/2/401) without recording any criticism, and al-Ḥāfiẓ [Ibn Ḥajar] calls him “maqbūl” (acceptable). In Fatḥ al-Bārī (11/53) he is described as “a Basran who is unknown.”

Through this very route al-Ḥākim recorded the report (4/272), but with the wording found in Ibn ʿUmar’s narration in the Ṣaḥīḥ: “A man must not make another man rise from his seat and then sit in it himself.” He declared its chain authentic, and al-Dhahabī concurred.

I say: The chain revolves around Shuʿbah—from ʿAbd Rabbu ibn Saʿīd—from Abū ʿAbdullāh, the client of the family of Abū Burdah—from Saʿīd ibn Abī al-Ḥasan.

There is, however, a discrepancy: Muslim ibn Ibrāhīm transmitted it for Abū Dāwūd, while ʿAmr ibn Marzūq transmitted it for al-Ḥākim. The first gave it with wording close to that of Ibn ʿUmar in Abū Dāwūd, as already mentioned; ʿAmr ibn Marzūq rendered it exactly as it appears in the Ṣaḥīḥ. If his version conflicts with that of Muslim ibn Ibrāhīm, Muslim’s narration is the stronger, for Muslim is trustworthy and reliable, whereas ʿAmr—though trustworthy—has slips, as stated in al-Taqrīb. His report is therefore less weighty. And Allah knows best.