and al-ʿIjlī. Yet Ibn Ḥibbān contradicted himself by also listing him among the weak narrators! Al-Ḥāfiẓ’s status was unclear to him, so he said:

“Acceptable.”

As for al-Dhahabī, he said in al-Kāshif:

“Truthful.”

ʿIkrimah also corroborated him, narrating from Ibn ʿAbbās, in the exegesis of the verse concerning the Hour.

Al-Ḥākim narrated it (2/488) through Sammāk ibn Ḥarb, from him. He said:

“Its chain of transmission is authentic.”

Al-Dhahabī concurred with him.

I say: It is as they both said, were it not that Sammāk ibn Ḥarb’s narrations from ʿIkrimah in particular are inconsistent. However, he was corroborated, for ʿAbd al-Razzāq said in his Tafsīr (2/198–199): from Ibn ʿUyaynah, from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, from ʿIkrimah, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās said:

“If what Abū Hurayrah says is true, then it is Jesus,” on account of Allah’s saying: “Indeed, he is a sign of the Hour.”

I say: This is an authentic chain of transmission.

Know that the hadith plainly indicates that the pronoun in Allah’s saying, “Indeed, he is a sign of the Hour,” refers to Jesus, not to the Quran, as has been reported from some. Hence al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr said:

“Rather, the sound view is that it refers back to Jesus, for the context concerns his mention. What is meant thereby is his descent before the Day of Resurrection, as Allah says: ‘There is none of the People of the Book but will surely believe in him before his death’—that is, before the death of Jesus,”