Secondly: The authentication of its chain of transmission by al-Ḥākim, al-Dhahabī, and Ibn Shāhīn is highly questionable. Although al-Saksakī was cited by al-Bukhārī, criticism has been made of his retention, preventing his chain from being declared authentic. A rating of good, however, is possible. Al-Dhahabī himself said in al-Mīzān:

“A Kūfan, truthful. Shuʿbah and al-Nasāʾī regarded him as somewhat weak, though he was not abandoned. Al-Nasāʾī said: ‘He is not particularly strong.’ Al-Bukhārī cited him. Aḥmad said: ‘Weak.’ Ibn ʿAdī said: ‘I have found no hadith of his whose text is rejected.’”

And in al-Ruwāt al-Mutakallam Fīhim bimā Lā Yūjib al-Radd (Narrators Criticized in a Manner That Does Not Warrant Rejection) (p. 55), he said:

“Shuʿbah regarded him as somewhat weak, and Aḥmad declared him weak; his hadith is good.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb:

“Truthful, weak in retention.” See Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl (2/12), for it contains one of his hadiths which Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Ḥibbān, and Ibn al-Jārūd declared authentic.

Thirdly: Al-Ḥākim’s statement, “Muslim relied upon him,” is an error, perhaps introduced by one of the copyists. What is transmitted from al-Ḥākim is to the contrary. In his biographical notice on this al-Saksakī in Muqaddimah al-Fatḥ (p. 388), al-Ḥāfiẓ records:

“Al-Ḥākim said: I asked al-Dāraquṭnī, ‘Why did Muslim omit his hadith?’ He replied, ‘Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd spoke critically of him.’ I asked, ‘On valid grounds?’ He replied, ‘He is weak.’”

Fourthly: Despite all this, al-Ḥāfiẓ’s silence concerning the hadith indicates that he considered it strengthened, placing it in the rank of good, as in Ibn Shāhīn’s preceding statement. According to al-Ḥāfiẓ, this would be either good in itself or good by virtue of supporting evidence; the latter is closer to my view, for al-Bayhaqī cited for it a corroborating report from