Khalid—who was Khalid ibn Yazid al-Misri—also corroborated him in narrating it from Ibn Abi Hilal. Al-Nasa’i transmitted it (1/287), as did he in al-Kubra (1/658). I say: Thus, in light of these corroborating reports, it is authentic, were it not for this al-Nadr, who is unknown and unidentifiable, as al-Dhahabi stated, and likewise al-ʿAsqalani in al-Taqrib—although he objected to this in al-Tahdhib with something utterly without substance! Yet the hadith is authentic through the first chain, and its text is more explicit in indicating the prohibition of sitting than this one, with an explicitness that admits no interpretation. In contrast, al-Tahawi and others interpreted this as referring to sitting in order to defecate or urinate! Simply recounting this interpretation makes any refutation of it unnecessary, and this wording itself invalidates it. See Ahkam al-Jana’iz, p. 210.

Note: Dear readers will observe that I have attributed the hadith to Ahmad by way of Atraf al-Musnad by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani. This differs from my consistent practice of citing the Musnad directly, giving the volume and page number of the old edition, or sometimes the number in the new edition edited by Ahmad Shakir, may Allah Most High have mercy on him. Someone may ask: “Why have you departed from your usual practice?” The answer is that the hadith does not appear in the published Musnad in any of the versions cited in Atraf al-Musnad, even though a number of hadith masters have attributed it to it, including Majd Ibn Taymiyyah in al-Muntaqa, al-Khatib al-Tabrizi in al-Mishkat (1721), and al-Hafiz in al-Isabah and also in al-Fath (3/224–225), citing this very wording, where he said: “Its chain of transmission is authentic.” He also cited the other wording found with al-Nasa’i, but did not attribute it to Ahmad. I therefore annotated al-Mishkat by saying: “I did not find it in the Musnad; indeed, I categorically maintain that it is not in it, for al-Haythami did not include it in”