in al-Tafsīr (1/61 and 64), Ibn Abī Ḥātim (1/31, no. 40), and Aḥmad (4/378–379). Through Aḥmad’s route, al-Bayhaqī also recorded it in Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah (5/339–341), as did al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (17/98–100), from him with this wording. The versions of Ibn Ḥibbān, Aḥmad, and others—including al-Tirmidhī—also contain the account of ʿAdī’s acceptance of Islam, may Allah be pleased with him. Al-Tirmidhī said:

“This is a good, singular hadith. We know it only through the hadith of Sammāk ibn Ḥarb.”

I say: He is a trustworthy narrator of middling rank, except in his reports from ʿIkrimah, which are inconsistent. This report is among his narrations from ʿAbbād ibn Ḥubaysh, who is known only through him. He is therefore unknown, and he is the hidden defect in this chain of transmission. Ibn al-Qaṭṭān considered him unknown, and al-Dhahabī said:

“He is unknown.”

Thus, the statement of the annotators of al-Mawārid (5/375):

“Its chain of transmission is good on account of Sammāk ibn Ḥarb, and the rest of its narrators are trustworthy ...”

is not sound. It is based on a principle they have devised for themselves: accepting as evidence reports from unknown narrators who are known only through the transmission of a single person, so long as they have been declared trustworthy by Ibn Ḥibbān or other lenient scholars; and on disregarding the position of the critical hadith masters regarding such leniency. There are dozens—indeed, hundreds—of narrators whom those lenient scholars declared trustworthy, yet the critical hadith masters mentioned above did not accept their accreditation. This is the example before you, dear reader!

The second route: Muḥammad ibn Muṣʿab narrated from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Sammāk ibn Ḥarb, from Murayy ibn Qaṭariyy, from ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim ...

Al-Ṭabarī also recorded it.