the hadith, but only its first half! Perhaps the rest was omitted by the typesetter or the copyist.

The mention of Zayd ibn Thābit may also be among the errors of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Qurashī, for the hadith is well known from Zayd ibn Khālid through authentic routes from him, with closely similar wordings, some containing additions over others. Some of these are found in the two Ṣaḥīḥs and elsewhere. I have cited some of them in al-Rawḍ al-Naḍīr, no. 322; Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd, no. 2266; and al-Taʿlīq al-Raghīb, 2/96. Some of the wordings referred to may also be found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb wa al-Tarhīb, 2/69/1226.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī also erred when he attributed the hadith under discussion in al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr, 2/770, to al-Dārimī and Ibn Ḥibbān as well. It is not found in either of their works in this complete form. Their respective wordings may be found in the location cited above in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb, where they are attributed to Ibn Ḥibbān and Ibn Mājah as well. Al-Suyūṭī himself attributed it to Ibn Mājah in both of his Jāmiʿ collections, and it appears in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr, 5/280/6070, in the first authorized edition!

Likewise, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī overlooked it and did not include it in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, although it meets his condition. Yet, as stated above, he included the first half of it in the hadith of Zayd ibn Thābit.

The three annotators of their new edition of al-Targhīb were misled by his statement, “Its narrators are those of the Ṣaḥīḥ,” and so declared it authentic, 2/215/1868! This is due to their ignorance of this field, for authenticity does not necessarily follow from such a statement. The report may contain a hidden defect that impugns its authenticity, such as a break in the chain, concealment in transmission, or the like—as is the case here. For although ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq is among the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ—meaning Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim—he is weak, as mentioned earlier. For this reason, I confined myself to grading its chain of transmission as good.