I said: That is to say, the correct stance regarding the ḥadīth is that the report from ʿAmr ibn Yaḥyā, from his father, is mursal (with the Companion omitted), exactly as Mālik transmitted it. We have no doubt about this, for although al-Darāwardī is trustworthy and one of Muslim’s narrators, there is a slight criticism of his retention, so his version cannot override that of a reliable transmitter—especially when that transmitter is someone like Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him.

Al-Dāraqutnī also produced the ḥadīth (p. 522) with a connected chain through the route just mentioned, but without the additional phrase, “Whoever harms….” I later found that he recorded it elsewhere (p. 321) via the same route, this time with the addition.

As for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, it is related from him by ʿIkrimah, and from ʿIkrimah it comes through three routes:

1. Through Jābir al-Juʿfī from him. Ibn Mājah (2/57) and Aḥmad (1/313) both recorded it from ʿAbd al-Razzāq: “Maʿmar informed us from Jābir al-Juʿfī,” with the same wording. Ibn Rajab remarked, “The majority declared Jābir al-Juʿfī weak.”

2. Through Ibrāhīm ibn Ismāʿīl, from Dāwūd ibn al-Ḥuṣayn, from ʿIkrimah. Al-Dāraqutnī recorded it (p. 522). Ibn Rajab said, “A number of scholars deemed Ibrāhīm weak, and the reports of Dāwūd from ʿIkrimah are irregular (munkar).” I add: Saʿīd ibn Abī Ayyūb corroborated him in al-Ṭabarānī’s al-Kabīr (3/127/1), where he narrated: “Aḥmad ibn Rushdīn al-Miṣrī told us; Rūḥ ibn Ṣalāḥ informed us; Saʿīd ibn Abī Ayyūb informed us from Dāwūd ibn al-Ḥuṣayn,” with the same report, except that he halted it at Ibn ʿAbbās. Yet the chain is feeble: Rūḥ ibn Ṣalāḥ is weak, and Ibn Rushdīn was branded a liar, so the supposed corroboration is not valid.

3. Ibn Abī Shaybah said—as cited in Naṣb al-Rāyah (4/384)—“Muʿāwiyah ibn ʿAmr narrated to us; Zāʾidah narrated to us from Simāk, from ʿIkrimah,” with the report.