He said: “On the authority of Ḥabīb — Abū Ḥafṣ said: meaning al-Ḥadhdhāʾ — on the authority of Anas.” It was likewise narrated by Khālid ibn Ṭahmān, who said: “On the authority of Ḥabīb ibn Abī Ḥabīb al-Bajalī, on the authority of Anas,” and this is the ḥadīth that follows. We say: This Ḥabīb ibn Abī Ḥabīb was declared trustworthy by none other than Ibn Ḥibbān, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim asked his father about him, but he did not know him, as in al-ʿIlal 1/139–140. Moreover, there is disagreement concerning its text, and concerning whether it is mauqūf or marfūʿ, as will follow. Al-Dāraquṭnī declared this ḥadīth weak in al-ʿIlal, and al-Bazzār deemed it gharīb, as al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar reported from both of them in al-Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr 2/27.

Ibn al-Aʿrābī also transmitted it in his Muʿjam (1206), and al-Bayhaqī in al-Shuʿab (2872), via the sole route of ʿUqbah ibn Mukram, with this chain of transmission.

Baḥshal transmitted it in Tārīkh Wāsiṭ, p. 66, and al-Mizzī in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 13/385, via the sole route of Naṣr ibn ʿAlī, with it. Al-Mizzī did not say in his narration: “he attains the first takbīrah,” and Baḥshal did not cite its wording in full.

Ibn ʿAdī transmitted it in 2/810 and 3/891, and via him al-Bayhaqī (2874), from the route of Abū Ḥafṣ ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī al-Fallās, on the authority of Ḥabīb — Abū Ḥafṣ said: he is al-Ḥadhdhāʾ — on the authority of Anas. He did not say in his ḥadīth: “he attains the first takbīrah.”

Baḥshal also transmitted it in Tārīkh Wāsiṭ, p. 62: ḥaddathanā Aḥmad ibn Ismāʿīl ibn Marzūq (which has been corrupted in the printed edition to: ḥaddathanā Aḥmad ibn Ismāʿīl, qāla: ḥaddathanā Ismāʿīl ibn Marzūq), he said: ḥaddathanā Manṣūr ibn Muhājir, ḥaddathanā Abū al-Ḥasan (which has been corrupted in the printed edition to: Manṣūr ibn Muhājir Abū al-Ḥasan), ḥaddathanā Abū Ḥamzah al-Wāsiṭī, on the authority of Anas. And he said at its end: This Abū al-Ḥasan: his name is Shuʿayb ibn Maymūn (and it was corrupted in the printed edition to Jubayr ibn Maymūn). Concerning this Shuʿayb ibn Maymūn, al-Bukhārī said: there is something in him; Abū Ḥātim said: unknown; Ibn Ḥibbān said: he has munkar narrations, and he is not to be adduced as proof when he narrates alone; and al-Dāraquṭnī said: he is not strong. As for Abū Ḥamzah al-Wāsiṭī — he is ʿImrān ibn Abī ʿAṭāʾ al-Qaṣṣāb — there is disagreement concerning him, and he is closer to weakness. We say: al-Albānī, may God have mercy on him, did not notice these corruptions that occurred in the printed edition of Tārīkh =