nor could they have done otherwise! But they said: “It is good by virtue of its aforementioned supporting report!”

They meant the hadith of al-Nuʿmān ibn Bashīr, reported by al-Bukhārī and Muslim. Its wording differs from this report in some of its words; had its chain of transmission not been authentic, I would not have considered it permissible to declare this report good on that basis, because of the discrepancy I mentioned. It is cited in Ghāyat al-Marām (30/20).

It also has a brief supporting report, with similar wording, from the hadith of ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir.

Abū Yaʿlā narrated it in his Musnad (3/213/1653), as did al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ (2/437/1756), who said:

“No report is narrated from ʿAmmār except through this chain of transmission.”

Likewise, Abū Nuʿaym narrated it in al-Ḥilyah (9/236) and said:

“It is a singular narration from ʿAmmār; no one narrated it except Mūsā.”

I say: It is weak, as al-Haythamī said (4/73)—and he also attributed it to al-Ṭabarānī’s al-Kabīr. Elsewhere (10/293), he said:

“...and he is abandoned.”

He attributed it to Abū Yaʿlā.

In his Musnad, it appears: “Mūsā ibn ʿUbaydah: Saʿd ibn Ibrāhīm informed me, from one who informed him, from ʿAmmār.” The annotator therefore considered it defective because of the anonymity of the informant. He cited al-Haythamī’s attribution of it to the two Muʿjams and said:

“He overlooked attributing it to Abū Yaʿlā!”

Yet, as you have seen, he did attribute it to him in the other place; and the annotator himself failed to notice that it occurs