Thus, once you know this, it becomes clear to you that the hadith is authentic, since one of the three ʿAbd Allāhs—ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb—narrated it from him, as recorded by al-Bayhaqī and others, as mentioned above. One must therefore distinguish between the route of Abū Dāwūd and others from Ibn Lahīʿah, which is to be deemed weak, and the route of al-Bayhaqī, which is to be deemed authentic for the reason we have stated. This is a subtle verification derived from the meticulous investigations of the imams into the states of narrators, in narrator criticism and accreditation. Success is from Allah Most High.

Third: Al-Shawkānī’s statement, “Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Bayhaqī transmitted the hadith through two chains from Khawlah bint Yasār, and Ibn Lahīʿah occurs in it,” is likewise an error. For they have no chain for the hadith other than the aforementioned one: from Ibn Lahīʿah, from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb, from ʿĪsā ibn Ṭalḥah, from Abū Hurayrah, reporting that Khawlah bint Yasār ...

The chain thus ends with Abū Hurayrah, not Khawlah; and ʿĪsā ibn Ṭalḥah alone narrates from him.

However, Ibn Lahīʿah did narrate it on another occasion with a different chain from his shaykh. In the narration of Mūsā ibn Dāwūd al-Ḍabbī from him, he said: “Ibn Lahīʿah narrated to us, from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Abī Jaʿfar, from ʿĪsā ibn Ṭalḥah,” with the same report. Aḥmad recorded it (2/344). If Ibn Lahīʿah had preserved this through another chain of his from ʿĪsā ibn Ṭalḥah, then so be it; otherwise, it is one of his errors, since it is not narrated from him by any of the three ʿAbd Allāhs; rather, it conflicts with their narration, as stated above. Whether this is the case or that, it is not valid to claim that this chain is another route and that it is also from Khawlah!

Perhaps, by the other route, al-Shawkānī meant what al-Bayhaqī recorded after the hadith of Abū Hurayrah, through the chain of Mahdī ibn Ḥafṣ: ʿAlī ibn Thābit narrated to us, from al-Wāziʿ ibn Nāfiʿ, from Abū Salamah ibn