a Companion, when the scholars whose judgment is authoritative in determining such matters have established that he narrated from some of them, without giving the slightest indication that he did not hear from them—as is their practice in the biographical notices they write. At the beginning of this source analysis, I have already cited al-Tirmidhi’s independent authentication of Abu al-Mutawakkil’s hadith from Aishah. She died before Abu Hurayrah, as noted above; this means that he lived to meet her and that there is no break between him and her. The same, then, applies to his narration from Abu Hurayrah, as is well known to scholars, for it is established among them that mere contemporaneity suffices to establish an uninterrupted chain, as set forth in hadith terminology.

Further confirming this is that, when al-Hafiz al-Ala'i included this Abu al-Mutawakkil in his book, “... Rulings on Mursal Reports,” he added nothing beyond the following statement (294/450):

“Abu Hatim said: ‘He heard nothing from Umar—may Allah be pleased with him.’”

This plainly means that he did hear from the other Companions previously mentioned, including Abu Hurayrah—may Allah be pleased with him.

Second: His statement, “As the report of Ibn Mardawayh, as cited in Ibn Kathir’s Exegesis, makes clear ...”

I say: This is a malicious deception, for Ibn Kathir’s Exegesis contains no such clarification. Rather, it contains the opposite of what he led readers to assume through his deception: Ibn Kathir cited Ibn Mardawayh’s report with his chain from Abu al-Mutawakkil, stating that Abu Hurayrah had the key to the charity house ... This apparently suggests the mursal transmission he alleged. But al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir refuted this by following it with al-Nasa'i’s connected narration—like this hadith, the hadith under discussion—through Isma'il ibn Muslim, from Abu al-Mutawakkil, from Abu Hurayrah, and then said: