is untenable, for the reason already mentioned: the possibility that he heard it from him. This is so even if his explicit statement that he heard it from him has not been established; so what then when he explicitly stated it in the narration of al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Ṭayālisī? Abū Ḥātim’s claim that it was “a mistake” is likewise untenable, since it is not permissible to reject the narration of a trustworthy narrator so long as it can be reconciled with the other narration that establishes the intermediary, in the manner explained above.

Moreover, al-Nasāʾī indicated that this narration is anomalous. After the hadith in al-Sunan al-Kubrā (4/58), he said:

“More than one narrator has related it from al-Shaʿbī, from Samurah; and it has also been related mursal from al-Shaʿbī, from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. We know of no one who mentioned Samʿān in this hadith other than Saʿīd ibn Masrūq.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī concurred with him.

If this is sound, then well and good; otherwise, the foregoing answer is sufficient and blessed. *

Among the Signs of His Prophethood, peace and blessings be upon him

3415/2 — “Before the Hour, ribā, fornication, and wine will become widespread.”

Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ (8/340/7691): Muḥammad ibn Dāwūd ibn Jābir al-Aḥmasī al-Baghdādī narrated to us; he said: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbbād al-Makkī narrated to us; he said: Ḥātim ibn Ismāʿīl narrated to us, from Bashīr Abū Ismāʿīl, from Sayyār, from Ṭāriq ibn Shihāb, from Ibn Masʿūd, from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said: … and he then cited it. He said:

“No one narrated it from Bashīr Abū Ismāʿīl except Ḥātim ibn Ismāʿīl.”

I say: He is trustworthy and among the narrators of the two Ṣaḥīḥs. Bashīr Abū Ismāʿīl—who is Ibn Salmān—is trustworthy and among the narrators of Muslim.