—Yazid—reporting from him. Al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi declared it authentic, and al-Hafiz graded it good, as you have seen. ‘Abd al-Haqq al-Ishbili also indicated this by including the hadith through al-Nasa’i’s narration and making no comment on it in his al-Ahkam al-Sughra (2/760), in which he stipulated authenticity, as is known from its introduction.

One matter of which no discerning researcher can be in doubt is that the convergence of these chains upon this text, and their agreement on it, instils confidence in its authenticity—especially as it is accompanied by Yazid ibn Nu‘aym ibn Hazzal’s categorical assertion that it is true.

I then saw that Shaykh Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari quoted in al-Mirqah (4/82) from the author of al-Tanqih—Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi—who said:

“Its chain of transmission is acceptable.”

I then found the hadith in al-Tabarani’s al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir (22/201–202), through Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir and ‘Ikrimah ibn ‘Ammar, from Yazid ibn Nu‘aym ibn Hazzal, from his grandfather Hazzal, in both abbreviated and extended versions.

I say: There remains a point concerning the jurisprudence of the hadith and what is meant by his words to Hazzal:

“If you had concealed him …”

For its apparent meaning is not intended without qualification. This is why al-Baji explained it in al-Muntaqa (7/135), saying:

“He means that, instead of what you did by publicizing his affair and informing the Prophet, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar about it, you should have concealed him by instructing him to repent and to keep his sin hidden. The cloak was mentioned only by way of emphasis: that if you could find no way to conceal him from those testifying against him except by covering him with your cloak, then that would have been …”