ʿAqil. Al-Tirmidhi then remarked—repeating the statement already quoted above. I could not locate the hadith in al-Mustadrak except as a hanging report (1/132); al-Hakim merely cites it, without authenticating it, immediately after the following version: The second chain: Abu Sufyan Tarif al-Saʿdi → Abu Nadrā → Abu Saʿid al-Khudri, transmitted as a marfuʿ report. Al-Tirmidhi (2/3), Ibn Majah, al-Daraqutni (140), and al-Bayhaqi (2/280) recorded it through several routes. This isnad is weak, because Abu Sufyan Tarif al-Saʿdi is daʿif; al-Hafiz states in al-Talkhis (3/265): “Weak.” Al-Tirmidhi observed: “The chain of ʿAli’s version is stronger than this one.” I add: al-Hakim (1/132) and al-Bayhaqi (2/379-380) also transmitted it through Abu ʿUmar al-Darir → Hasan ibn Ibrahim → Saʿid ibn Masruq al-Thawri → Abu Nadrā. On the surface, this isnad appears sound; accordingly al-Hakim judged it “sahih according to Muslim’s criterion,” and al-Dhahabi concurred. Yet al-Hafiz comments: “It is defective. Ibn Hibban, in his separate work Kitab al-Salah, states that the hadith is uniquely transmitted by Abu Sufyan, and that Hasan ibn Ibrahim erred when he reported it from Saʿid ibn Masruq → Abu Nadrā → Abu Saʿid; he assumed Abu Sufyan to be Sufyan al-Thawri’s father, unaware that this Abu Sufyan is another man, Tarif ibn Shihab, who is weak.” Al-Hakim concludes: “The best-known chain for this hadith is that of Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn ʿAqil → Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya → ʿAli.”