“Its chain of transmission consists of trustworthy narrators.”

I say: Yet he did not declare it authentic. Al-Ḥāfiẓ clarified this in his Takhrīj al-Adhkār, stating—as cited in Ibn ʿAllān’s commentary (3/266):

“Ibn Mājah alone narrated it, and its narrators are those of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, except that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sābiṭ frequently narrated mursal reports. He was a trustworthy Successor. Ibn al-Mubārak also narrated it as a mursal report in Kitāb al-Jihād, saying: ‘From Ibn Sābiṭ: that ʿĀʾishah heard Sālim ...’ Ibn al-Mubārak was more precise than al-Walīd, who narrated the hadith with a connected chain. Yet the hadith has another route which mentions the hadith without the story; when joined to the preceding chain, it strengthens it, and establishes that it has a basis.”

I say: His statement, “Ibn al-Mubārak was more precise than al-Walīd,” is undoubtedly correct, but it suggests (1) that al-Walīd alone narrated it, whereas this is not so, as I indicated in my earlier statement: “through two routes from Ḥanẓalah.”

By the first I mean the route of the group from al-Walīd; by the other, Aḥmad’s route. He said: “Ibn Numayr related to us; he said: Ḥanẓalah related to us, from Ibn Sābiṭ, from ʿĀʾishah ...” Aḥmad narrated this among a number of hadiths from Ibn Numayr—whose name was also ʿAbd Allāh. He was trustworthy and one of the narrators relied upon by the two Shaykhs. This is therefore a strong corroborating transmission from him for al-Walīd ibn Muslim. Thus, the issue is the possibility of a break in the chain, not a discrepancy between the narrators. And Allah knows best.

I then saw that al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned this narration of Aḥmad in al-Iṣābah, yet nevertheless confined the discrepancy to Ibn al-Mubārak and al-Walīd alone, saying: “Ibn al-Mubārak had stronger retention than al-Walīd!”