and from this, it becomes clear that the commentator referred to did not do well when he presented the isnād of al-Ḥākim starting from ʿUmar ibn Yūnus; for this gives the impression that those below him have no weakness, and this is not how verification should be done! In a similar vein: he weakened the isnād of Ibn Ḥibbān in this ḥadīth due to Suwayd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, who said: "al-Awzāʿī narrated to us from Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah from Abū ʿUbayd Allāh Muslim ibn Mishkam who said: 'I went out with Shaddād ibn Aws...' and he mentioned a story, in which this ḥadīth is included; he commented on it saying: 'Suwayd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz is lenient in ḥadīth, and the rest of the narrators are trustworthy, and Aḥmad also narrated it (4/123) through the route of Rūḥ from al-Awzāʿī from Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah who said: 'Shaddād ibn Aws...' and his narrators are trustworthy except that Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah did not meet Shaddād.'" I say: Yes; however, ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī mentioned in the biography of Ḥassān that among his teachers was Abū ʿUbayd Allāh Muslim ibn Mishkam, so it is not far-fetched that he was the intermediary between Ḥassān and Shaddād, making the route of Rūḥ—who is Ibn ʿUbādah—a strong corroboration for Suwayd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. There is another possibility, which is that the intermediary between them was Abū al-Ashʿath al-Ṣanʿānī, as he is also among the teachers of Ḥassān. The ḥadīth has other routes: including what is with al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Ḥibbān (2416 - Mawārid), and al-Ṭabarānī (7/353/7180) through the route of Saʿīd al-Jurayrī from Abū al-ʿAlāʾ from Shaddād. Its narrators are trustworthy, but it is disconnected between Abū al-ʿAlāʾ and Shaddād