facilitating access to Ibn Ḥibbān’s al-Thiqāt by arranging it alphabetically. This biographical entry is found there, so glory be to Allah: “My Lord neither errs nor forgets.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ also cited it in Lisān al-Mīzān (5/422–423), but remarked immediately afterward: “It has already been stated in the entry on Aḥmad that this Muḥammad had become confused!” Yet what appears in the entry on Aḥmad is the following: “Al-Ḥākim Abū Aḥmad said: ‘It is most likely that I heard Abū al-Jahm and asked him about the condition of Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad. He replied: He had grown old, and people would prompt him with material that was not among his hadiths, and he would accept the prompting. He died in the year 289 AH.’”

I say: It appears that al-Ḥāfiẓ’s pen slipped, and he wrote “Muḥammad” in place of “Aḥmad.” Allah knows best.

Moreover, this Aḥmad has a biographical entry in al-Dhahabī’s al-Mīzān, where he said: “He has objectionable narrations. Al-Ḥākim Abū Aḥmad said: ‘There is cause for concern regarding him.’ Abū al-Jahm al-Shaʿrānī narrated from him false reports...” He then mentioned two hadiths of his. It is likewise remarkable that this escaped al-Haythamī’s notice!

All the remaining narrators are trustworthy transmitters found in the two Ṣaḥīḥs, apart from Ibrāhīm ibn Ṭarīf, who is unknown, as al-Ḥāfiẓ said. See Taysīr al-Intifāʿ.

Note: This hadith has previously appeared in volume 2, no. 840, with a brief discussion of its documentation and authentication, but without the benefits mentioned here. This is the relied-upon version.