the two Shaykhs, and Yazīd ibn Hārūn is not among their teachers. This accords with the criterion of his that we have identified through induction: his chain of transmission must reach, beginning with his own teacher and those above him, one of the teachers of the two Shaykhs; and those above that teacher must likewise be among their narrators. Yet, as is well known to those skilled in this discipline, he often failed to adhere to this criterion.

Moreover, the condition I have mentioned is a convention peculiar to him, which he himself adopted. Otherwise, it is valid only when all the narrators in the chain meet the criteria of the two Shaykhs. This is possible only if the one citing the report with its chain is from their generation, as is evident to the scholars. Indeed, in many of the reports that he declared authentic according to the criteria of both of them, or of one of them, we have found that his chain to their teacher is not sound!

Then, apart from the phrase concerning the one who sits in the mosque, ʿAbd al-Razzāq recorded the hadith in al-Muṣannaf (11/297/20585), from Maʿmar, from ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī ... He attributed the hadith directly to the Prophet and cited it in a similar wording.

This ʿAṭāʾ was a weak Successor. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said:

“Truthful, but makes frequent mistakes; he transmits mursal reports and practises tadlīs.”

Note: You have learned that the hadith of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām is attributed to the Companion in al-Ḥākim’s work. Al-Mundhirī ascribed it to him without stating that it was attributed to the Companion, so I added this in my book Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb (1/203/324). For he said:

“Ahmad narrated it through Ibn Lahīʿah, and al-Ḥākim narrated it from the hadith of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām, but without the words, ‘One who sits in the mosque ...,’ and so on. He said: ‘Authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs!’”

Then came the three annotators, who ruined the book with their numerous, crude annotations! In them, they produced an astonishing muddle, showing the researcher that they have not even caught a whiff of this discipline, let alone been critical scholars in it. We have previously cited examples of their confusion, including: