“He was prone to frequent error and made gross mistakes …” It would therefore have been more appropriate for him to include the shaykh alongside the narrator from whom he reported among the weak narrators.

This al-Walid is not Ibn Abi Malik al-Hamdani of Damascus, who is trustworthy. I have pointed this out because, in al-Mustadrak and its Epitome, the narrator under discussion is named “al-Walid ibn Abi Malik,” and I feared that he might be confused with the narrator in question.

The third flaw: Muhammad ibn Qays, the client of Sahl, is likewise unknown, since no one narrated from him except the unknown al-Walid, as explained above.

As for what appears in al-Jarh wa al-Taʿdil (4/1/62)—that ʿAbd al-Karim ibn Abi al-Mukhariq also narrated from him—it is an error, which al-Husayni repeated in his book. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar criticized him for it in al-Taʿjil (375/969), saying:

“Rather, ʿAbd al-Karim narrated from him through al-Walid. This is how it appears in Ahmad, by way of Ibn Jurayj …” He then cited the hadith.

Al-Bukhari likewise mentioned him in his book, as did Ibn Hibban in al-Thiqat (5/373), only through the narration of al-Walid ibn Malik.

Once you know this, Ibn Hibban’s error in listing this Muhammad ibn Qays among the trustworthy narrators also becomes clear, for this rests on the narration of an unknown narrator from him.

Despite this manifest weakness in the chain of transmission of the hadith, al-Hakim left it without comment, followed by al-Dhahabi. Then Ibn al-Mulaqqin did not mention it at all in his book, Abridgment of al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi’s Additions to Abu ʿAbd Allah al-Hakim’s al-Mustadrak!