One of the curious points is that this sound route has been neglected by every later scholar who cited the ḥadīth—such as al-Zaylaʿī, Ibn Ḥajar, and others who are not specialists in isnād analysis. Even the ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī overlooked it, failing to include it in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, although it meets his own criteria! All of this confirms the old maxim, “How much have the predecessors left for those who come after them.” It is a clear proof of the need to return to the primary sources whenever one wishes to verify a ḥadīth, for there he will find what makes his research more mature and accurate. Allah, exalted is He, is the One who grants success.

Now that you know this, do not be swayed by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar’s remark in al-Dirāyah (p. 7) concerning this report of Ibn ʿAbbās: “Al-Dāraqutnī recorded it; there is disagreement over whether its chain is connected or mursal, and the preponderant view is that it is mursal.” He is referring to the first route, whereas you have seen that the correct view is that it is connected and sound were it not for Ibn Jurayj’s use of the ambiguous ʿanʿanah—an objection that, as you have already learned, can be answered.

5 – As for the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah, al-Dāraqutnī recorded it (p. 37) through Muḥammad ibn al-Azhar al-Jawzajānī: “Al-Faḍl ibn Mūsā al-Sīnānī informed us, from Ibn Jurayj, from Sulaymān ibn Mūsā, from al-Zuhrī, from ʿUrwah, from her.” Al-Dāraqutnī then commented, “Thus he narrated it; the mursal version is more sound.” That is, Ibn Jurayj relates it from Sulaymān as a mursal report, just as occurred in the first route from Ibn ʿAbbās. Regarding Muḥammad ibn al-Azhar, al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Talkhīṣ (33): “Aḥmad declared him a liar.”