"if the source of the mursal is authenticated by it coming from another chain, either musnad or mursal, narrated by someone other than the men of the first chain, then it is authentic." Refer to "Fatḥ al-Mughīth" (1/138). Our response to his aforementioned statement is twofold: first, this applies to mursal reports that have not been proven to be objectionable or in contradiction with authentic ḥadīths. Similarly, I say regarding the musnad that supports it, it is not suitable for testimony because it is also objectionable, as previously established. How can an objectionable report strengthen another objectionable one?! The second point is that the mursal reports of al-Ḥasan are considered unreliable by scholars, as al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī mentioned, quoted by al-Suyūṭī in his "Sharḥ" (1/204), because al-Ḥasan was known to believe anyone who narrated to him. Therefore, Ibn Sīrīn said: "Narrate from whomever you wish of the mursal reports except from al-Ḥasan and Abū al-ʿĀliyah, for they do not care from whom they take the ḥadīth." Aḥmad said: "There is nothing weaker among the mursal reports than those of al-Ḥasan and ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, for they take from everyone." This is quoted from "Jāmiʿ al-Taḥṣīl" by al-ʿAlāʾī (pp. 44, 86, 87, and 97). Furthermore, what confirms what the scholars mentioned is that al-Ḥasan himself might narrate a ḥadīth from a Companion without naming who narrated it to him, and then he issues a fatwá contrary to it! This indicates that he himself did not trust what he transmitted as mursal. See "al-Ḍaʿīfah" ḥadīth (342). 4 - As for his fourth ḥadīth, he mentioned it from the narration of ʿAbd al-Razzāq in "al-Muṣannaf" from Ibn Jurayj, who said: Nāfiʿ ibn Jubayr and others said:... and he mentioned the ḥadīth. He commented afterward: "Its isnād is authentic"!