Its chain of transmission is sound according to Muslim’s criteria, as al-Nawawi affirms (3/407; 443). Al-Tahawi (1/134) nevertheless declared it weak on two grounds: (i) that this Abd al-Hamid (*) is unreliable; and (ii) that Muhammad b. Amr b. Ataa did not actually hear the report from Abu Humayd, there supposedly being an unidentified intermediary between them. Both objections are unfounded. First, the great majority of critics—among them Ahmad and Ibn Main—rate Abd al-Hamid trustworthy, while those who deemed him weak, such as Yahya b. Said, produced no evidence; the context shows that their reservation stemmed merely from his view on al-qadar (predestination), which is not a disqualifying flaw. Ibn Hibban’s comment, “he may err on occasion,” is of the same negligible sort—who is entirely free from error?—and Muslim’s inclusion of his narrations is itself sufficient endorsement. Second, Muhammad b. Amr has explicitly stated that he heard the report directly from Abu Humayd, as mentioned above; any claim to the contrary is therefore inadmissible. Al-Tahawi’s support (1/153) for his objection by citing the route of Attaf b. Khalid (“Muhammad b. Amr b. Ataa told me that a man informed him he found ten of the Prophet’s Companions sitting …”) is of no avail, for Attaf b. Khalid is criticized and neither of the two Sahihs relies on him. Ibn Hibban says of him: “He transmits from reliable narrators reports unlike theirs; one may cite him only when his version accords with theirs,” and Taqrib summarises: “truthful but makes mistakes.” (*) I.e. the narrator who reports from Muhammad b. Amr b. Ataa; see p. 830.