“There is cause for scrutiny in its chain of transmission,” as cited in Ibn Ḥajar’s al-Iṣābah.

Accordingly, he was mistaken when he presented Sayyār’s chain alongside Jaʿfar’s, giving the impression that their chains were one and the same. The reality is otherwise: the former has a continuous chain to the Prophet, whereas the latter is mursal, as I have explained. This makes clear the error of the annotator of Musnad Abū Yaʿlā (12/238), who said: “Its chain is authentic as far as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khunbash, and it is attributed to him as a Companion report.” The correct ruling on Abū al-Tayyāḥ’s chain is that it is mursal, as previously explained.

His statement, “and it is attributed to him as a Companion report,” is evidence of his inexperience in this discipline. The entire matter, from beginning to end, concerns the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: Satan’s attempt to burn him; Allah’s repelling it from him after he had experienced some fright and begun to retreat; and his saying to Gabriel, “What should I say?” How can something like this be called “attributed to the Companion”?!

The annotator of al-Maqṣad al-ʿAlī (4/338–339) likewise followed him in declaring the chain authentic. He has no knowledge of this field; indeed, for the most part, he merely follows others uncritically. I was pleased, however, that he did not follow him in treating it as a Companion report. The annotator of Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn (8/55) also declared its chain authentic. Further demonstrating his inexperience, he added: “Al-Haythamī, in al-Majmaʿ (10/127), also attributed it to al-Kabīr and authenticated it!”

In fact, he did not declare it authentic, for he did not say, as these hadith scholars did, “Its chain is authentic.” Rather, he said: “Its narrators are narrators found in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections.” There is a vast difference between the two, as is not lost on those knowledgeable in the field; I have pointed this out repeatedly.

The hadith also has a corroborating report from Ibn Masʿūd. Al-Ṭabarānī said: “Aḥmad ibn”