(3 – continued) This chain meets Muslim’s criterion. Ibn Hajar remarks in al-Dirayah (p. 127), “All its transmitters are trustworthy,” and in Bulugh al-Maram (1/284) he grades it “sound (qawi).” I would only question the hadith because of Abu al-Zubayr’s use of the ʿanʿanah form, for he is known for tadlis; but the supporting evidence that follows outweighs this concern. Abu Hatim was asked about the version transmitted by Abu Bakr al-Hanafi from Sufyan al-Thawri. He answered, “This is a mistake; it is Jabir’s own statement, reporting that the Prophet entered upon a sick person….” When he was told that Abu Usamah had also related the report from al-Thawri as marfuʿ, he replied, “That is of no value; it is mawquf.” So in Ibn Abi Hatim’s al-ʿIlal (1/113). Ibn Hajar refutes this in al-Talkhis (3/294): “I note that three narrators—Abu Usamah, Abu Bakr al-Hanafi, and ʿAbd al-Wahhab—concur on the marfuʿ version.” Accordingly, the marfuʿ transmission through these three is the one to be accepted; the mawquf variant does not weaken it, especially since Abu Hatim did not name anyone who actually reported it as mawquf. The only possible flaw remains Abu al-Zubayr’s tadlis. Abu Yaʿla also recorded the hadith in his Musnad through another route: Hafs b. Abi Dawud—Muhammad b. ʿAbd al-Rahman—ʿAta—Jabir. This Hafs is Ibn Sulayman al-Ghadrī, the Qurʾan-reciter; he is rejected as a transmitter, while Muhammad b. ʿAbd al-Rahman (Ibn Abi Layla) is weak because of poor memory. There is an additional corroborating narration from Ibn ʿUmar. Al-Tabarani reports it in al-Kabir: “ʿAbd Allah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal told us—Shabab al-Usfuri told us—Sahl Abu ʿAttab told us—Hafs b. Sulayman, from Qays b. Muslim (who was from Kufa)….”