al-Haytham, as Abū Dāwūd stated, and al-Ḥāfiẓ followed him in this. This is the view that I ultimately found reassuring and convincing, as I had explained under the preceding hadith (3350). Ibn Ḥujayrah was the elder one, and his name was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. He was a trustworthy narrator among Muslim’s transmitters. It seems that, for the reason I have mentioned, al-Mundhirī deemed the hadith defective when he said (1/132):

“Ahmad narrated it through Ibn Lahīʿah,”

alluding to the weakness found in it. Al-Haythamī stated this explicitly when he said (2/22):

“Ahmad narrated it, and it contains Ibn Lahīʿah, concerning whom there has been criticism.”

Thus, neither of them deemed it defective on account of Darrāj, and that can only be due to what has preceded. Allah, the Most High, knows best.

As for their deeming it defective on account of Ibn Lahīʿah, they followed the usual course in doing so, but failed to notice that it was transmitted by Qutaybah, namely Ibn Saʿīd al-Miṣrī. His transmission from Ibn Lahīʿah is authentic, just like that of the ʿAbādilah from him, as has been pointed out more than once.

It also has a strong supporting report from the hadith of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām, who said: ... and he cited it as a report attributed to the Companion. It is not directly attributed to the Prophet, but it carries the same ruling, since it is not something that can be stated on the basis of personal opinion. It does not contain the words: “One who sits in the mosque ...,” and so on.

Al-Ḥākim narrated it (2/398) through al-Ḥasan ibn Mukarram al-Bazzāz: Yazīd ibn Hārūn informed us; Abū Ghassān Muḥammad ibn Muṭarrif al-Laythī informed us; Abū Ḥāzim related to us from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab, from him. He said:

“Authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs, as a report attributed to the Companion.”

Al-Dhahabī agreed with him, and al-Mundhirī endorsed it as well. I say: It is merely authentic, because al-Ḥasan ibn Mukarram al-Bazzāz is not among the narrators of