and in the other is ʿAlī ibn Sulaymān al-Kalbī, whom I do not know; the remaining narrators in both chains are trustworthy.” The three annotators simply followed him!
I say: As for Layth, his describing him as one who practised concealment in transmission is one of his recurrent errors, in which he has contradicted both the early and later scholars, as we have pointed out repeatedly. As for his not knowing al-Kalbī, that is among his oddities, for the man is known and trustworthy, as stated above. Indeed, I believe that he is listed in his Tartīb Thiqat Ibn Ḥibbān, since he appears in its original work, as mentioned earlier. I did not affirm this with certainty only because I have not come across the third volume, which contains the entries under the letter ʿayn. And Allah knows best.
Moreover, the first part of the hadith was also narrated by Ismāʿīl ibn Muslim, from al-Ḥasan, from Jundab, as a report attributed to the Prophet.
It was recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in his Muṣannaf (10/26/18250), al-Rūyānī in his Musnad (2/143/662), and al-Ṭabarānī as well in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (2/170/1660 and 171/1661).
In sum, through these chains and corroborating reports, the hadith is authentic as a report attributed to the Prophet. It is not impaired by the fact that some narrated it as attributable only to a Companion. Hence the hadith master made no comment on these routes in al-Fatḥ; indeed, as previously cited from him, he explicitly stated that a report attributed to a Companion in this manner has the status of one attributed to the Prophet. Thus, the narrations are in agreement, and the apparent discrepancy between them has been removed. All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
Two notes:
- Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī commented on this narration of Ismāʿīl ibn Muslim in ʿAbd al-Razzāq, saying:
“Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Kabīr, and its narrators are among the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ. This was stated by al-Haythamī, 7:297.”