Muhammad—meaning al-Bukhari—said: “It is stronger and more reliable than the report of Abu Maʿshar.” I add: All its transmitters are trustworthy except al-Tirmidhi’s shaykh, “al-Hasan b. Abi Bakr.” That is how the name appears in the Sunan, even in the edition revised by the judge Ahmad Shakir, yet it is a mistake. The correct form is al-Hasan b. Bakr, omitting the word Abi, as stated in the biographical works Tahdhib, Khulasa, and Taqrib. He is al-Hasan b. Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Rahman al-Marwazi, Abu ʿAli, resident of Mecca. Muslim labelled him majhul (unknown), according to Tahdhib, though a number of reliable narrators transmitted from him, and for that reason Ibn Hajar wrote in Taqrib: “saduq” (acceptable). Allah knows best. The hadith also has a supporting chain from Ibn ʿUmar. Al-Daraqutni (no. 101) and al-Hakim (1/206) narrated it through Yazid b. Harun—Muhammad b. ʿAbd al-Rahman b. al-Mujabbir—from Nafiʿ—from him, raised (marfuʿ). Al-Hakim ruled: “Sahih, and Ibn Mujabbir is reliable.” I respond: Not so; he is unanimously judged weak. Al-Dhahabi listed him in al-Mizan and Ibn Hajar in al-Lisan without citing any authority that declared him trustworthy; they merely quoted the critics’ statements on his weakness. Al-Hakim stands alone in authenticating him, and his view cannot be relied upon. Still, he has corroboration: al-Daraqutni, followed by al-Dhiyaʾ in al-Mukhtara, and again al-Hakim (p. 205), transmitted it through Abu Yusuf Yaʿqub b. Yusuf al-Wasiti—Shuʿayb b. Ayyub—ʿAbd Allah b. Numayr—ʿUbayd Allah b. ʿUmar—from Nafiʿ. Al-Hakim judged it “sahih according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs, for Shuʿayb b. Ayyub is trustworthy and the isnad is continuous,” and al-Dhahabi concurred.