Hilal ibn Maymun, from ʿAta ibn Yazid al-Laythi, from Abu Saʿid al-Khudri, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: … and he mentioned it.

Through Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu Yaʿla also recorded it in his Musnad (2/291/1011), and through this route Ibn Hibban recorded it as well (431—Mawarid).

Abu Dawud (560) also recorded it, and through him al-Baghawi, in Sharh al-Sunnah (3/341/788)—where he graded it authentic (p. 339)—and al-Hakim (1/208), and through him al-Bayhaqi in Shuʿab al-Iman (3/48/2831), all through other routes from Abu Muʿawiyah with it. However, al-Hakim’s chain contains “Hilal ibn Abi Maymunah,” inserting “Abi” between the son’s name and his father’s name. He therefore said:

“It is an authentic hadith according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, for both of them accepted as proof the narrations of Hilal ibn Abi Hilal, who is also called Ibn Abi Maymunah, Ibn ʿAli, and Ibn Usamah—all of these refer to one person.”

I say: Al-Dhahabi concurred with him! Yet this is one error compounded by another. Al-Hakim made this error in his chain, contradicting all the aforementioned routes from Abu Muʿawiyah—who was Muhammad ibn Khazim—for he narrates only from Hilal ibn Maymun, the Juhani. Ibn Maʿin and others declared him trustworthy, and they did not mention any narration of Abu Muʿawiyah from Hilal ibn Abi Maymunah. Thus, it is among al-Hakim’s errors, may Allah have mercy on him, to which the scholars referred in his biographical notice—errors that occurred in his Mustadrak.

What further confirms this is that the previously cited narration of al-Bayhaqi from him is free of this error. Its annotator, however, failed to notice it and said:

“Al-Hakim recorded it (1/208) with the same chain and graded it authentic, and al-Dhahabi agreed with him!”