“None transmitted it from Amr b. al-Harith except Ibn Wahb, and Harmalah is the only one who related it.” He (Ibn Hajar) then added: “I fear that the error in it comes from Harmalah.” If al-Awsat and Ibn Hibban had actually recorded the report through Harmalah’s grandson, Ahmad b. Tahir, al-Hafiz would have declared it defective on that basis.(1) As for his reservation that the mistake might be from Harmalah, in my opinion it carries no weight, because Harmalah is saduq, as al-Hafiz himself states in al-Taqrib. He was also the most knowledgeable of people about Ibn Wahb, who is trustworthy, as al-Aqili affirms. Ibn ‘Adi remarks: “I have examined Harmalah’s narrations in depth and searched through many of them, and I found nothing that requires deeming him weak. A man who possesses the entire collection of Ibn Wahb’s hadith is not unlikely to have in his possession books and manuscripts unknown to others.” Therefore, in my judgment the hadith is authentic; al-Suyuti likewise declared it sahih in Tanwir al-Hawalik (1/174). It was recorded by al-Tayalisi (no. 346) and by al-Daraqutni—through two routes, as noted earlier—from Talha, from Ata with the same wording. After citing the first chain Ibn Hibban commented: “Ibn Wahb heard it from both Amr b. al-Harith and Talha b. Amr.” Al-Tabarani also reports it in al-Kabir (no. 10851) and al-Awsat (no. 4249)—and, through him, al-Diya al-Maqdisi in al-Mukhtarah (11/56/47)—by another route: ‘Abbas b. Muhammad al-Mujashi‘i al-Isbahani → Muhammad b. Abi Ya‘qub al-Kirmani → Sufyan b. ‘Uyaynah → Amr b. Dinar → Tawus → Ibn Abbas, marfu‘. This chain is sound; all its transmitters are used by al-Bukhari except for ‘Abbas b. Muhammad al-Mujashi‘i, who is … (1) My conclusion was reinforced when I noticed that al-Maqdisi [11/209/201] also recorded the hadith through Abu Hatim Muhammad b. Hibban al-Busti (no. 885 in Mawarid): “Al-Hasan b. Sufyan narrated to us; Harmalah narrated it.”