This shows that the commentator referred to above did not handle the matter properly when he cited al-Ḥākim’s chain beginning with ʿUmar ibn Yūnus, for this gives the impression that there is no weakness in any of those preceding him in the chain. This is not the proper manner of critical verification.

Similarly, he declared Ibn Ḥibbān’s chain for this hadith weak on account of Suwayd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, who said: “Al-Awzāʿī narrated to us from Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah, from Abū ʿUbayd Allāh Muslim ibn Mishkam, who said: ‘I went out with Shaddād ibn Aws …’” He then mentioned an account containing this hadith, and the commentator remarked:

“Suwayd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz is weak in hadith, while the rest of its narrators are trustworthy. Aḥmad (4/123) also narrated it by way of Rūḥ, from al-Awzāʿī, from Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah, who said: ‘Shaddād ibn Aws used to …’ Its narrators are trustworthy, except that Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah did not live to meet Shaddād.”

I say: Yes; however, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī mentioned in Ḥassān’s biography that Abū ʿUbayd Allāh Muslim ibn Mishkam was among his teachers. It is therefore not unlikely that he was the intermediary between Ḥassān and Shaddād. Thus, the route of Rūḥ—namely, Ibn ʿUbādah—constitutes strong corroboration for Suwayd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.

There is another possibility: that the intermediary between them was Abū al-Ashʿath al-Ṣanʿānī, for he too was among Ḥassān’s teachers.

The hadith has other routes as well, including that recorded by al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Ḥibbān (2416—al-Mawārid), and al-Ṭabarānī (7/353/7180), through Saʿīd al-Jurayrī, from Abū al-ʿAlāʾ, from Shaddād, with the same report. Its narrators are trustworthy, but the chain is interrupted between Abū al-ʿAlāʾ and Shaddād.