al-Ḥākim cited it as supporting evidence but neither he nor al-Dhahabī authenticated it. As for al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī, he said in "Takhreej al-Iḥyāʾ" (2/4), "Its isnād is good." I say: It is not good, for Waḥshī ibn Ḥarb ibn Waḥshī, Ṣāliḥ Jazrah said, "He and his father are not to be engaged with," as mentioned in "al-Mīzān." And he said in the biography of his father, Ḥarb: "No one narrated from him except his son Waḥshī al-Ḥimṣī." Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "He is obscure," and about his father, "acceptable." In "Fayḍ al-Qadīr": "And this Waḥshī, al-Muzanī and al-Dhahabī said about him: he is weak. The essence of the ḥadīth is what al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī said, that its isnād is good. Ibn Ḥajar said: its authenticity is questionable, for the higher Waḥshī is the killer of Ḥamzah, and it is established that when he embraced Islam, the Prophet said to him: Hide your face from me. It is unlikely he heard from him after that unless it was sent. Ibn ʿAsākir's statement that the Companion of this ḥadīth is not the killer of Ḥamzah is refuted by the explicit mention that he is the killer in several paths by al-Ṭabarānī and others." I say: In summary, the isnād is weak for the reasons mentioned. As for what Ibn Ḥajar considered, it is of no consequence, for the most it suggests is that Waḥshī sent it, and the mursal of a Companion is a proof as established in the terminology, and there is no necessary connection in my view between his saying (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam): "Hide your face from me" and his not hearing from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). And Allāh knows best. However, the ḥadīth is good due to other supporting evidence, as it has witnesses in its meaning, so see: