I say: This chain of transmission has trustworthy narrators, all of them narrators of al-Bukhārī and Muslim except Muḥammad ibn Kunāsah—namely, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā ibn Kunāsah al-Kūfī—who was trustworthy. Yet Abū Ḥātim said: “He was a collector of historical reports; his hadith may be recorded, but it is not used as proof.”

I say: Hāshim ibn al-Qāsim contradicted him. Aḥmad said in the Musnad of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr (2/219): “Hāshim narrated to us; Isḥāq—that is, Ibn Saʿīd—narrated to us; Saʿīd ibn ʿAmr narrated to us, saying:

“ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr came to Ibn al-Zubayr while he was sitting in al-Ḥijr, and said, ‘O son of al-Zubayr, beware of committing sacrilege …’” He then related a report similar to it. He said, “See to it that you are not he, O son of ʿAmr! For you have read the scriptures and kept the company of the Messenger of Allah.” He replied, “I call you to witness that I am now setting out for Syria as a fighter in jihad.”

I say: This is an authentic chain of transmission. All of its narrators are trustworthy narrators of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, so it is sounder than the preceding one. For Hāshim ibn al-Qāsim—Abū al-Naḍr al-Laythī, their client, of Baghdad—was described by al-Ḥāfiẓ as:

“Trustworthy and firmly precise.”

Whereas he said of the former narrator, Ibn Kunāsah:

“Truthful.”

Al-Haythamī said concerning this hadith of Ibn Kunāsah (3/258):

“Related by Aḥmad, and its narrators are trustworthy.”

And concerning the hadith of Hāshim, he said:

“Related by Aḥmad, and its narrators are those of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”