al-Ḥākim said, "Authentic according to their criteria, for both relied on Mālik ibn Saʿīr, and the uniqueness from trustworthy narrators is accepted." al-Dhahabī agreed with him. I say: Mālik ibn Saʿīr is truthful, as stated by Abū Zurʿah and Abū Ḥātim, but al-Bukhārī did not rely on him; he only included him as a corroborative narrator, and Muslim only narrated from him in "al-Muqaddimah." Someone like him is relied upon if he narrates uniquely and does not contradict. If we prefer the mursal narration of Wakīʿ, then Mālik would have contradicted him, making his narration anomalous, and the mursal narration of Wakīʿ is the preserved one. If we prefer the connected narration of Wakīʿ, then the two narrations agree, and each serves as a witness for the other. This is more likely in my view, because the agreement of three narrators on narrating it from Wakīʿ as connected makes it unlikely, in usual circumstances, that they would all agree on an error, even if some of them have slight weakness without accusation, or in some of the narrators from him. When combined with the narration of Mālik ibn Saʿīr, the ḥadīth becomes strong and reaches the level of ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ, and Allāh knows best. (Benefit) al-Rāmahurmuzī said following the ḥadīth: "Their wording (meaning the narrators from Abū al-Khaṭṭāb) agreed on the inclusion of the mīm in his saying: 'muhdāh,' except that al-Burtī said: 'muhdāh' with the mīm broken from 'guidance,' and he was precise, understanding, and distinguished in fiqh and language. What he said is better in consideration because he was sent (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) as a guide, as Allāh said, (And indeed, you guide to a straight path) (Sūrah Ash-Shūrā, verse 52), and as He, the Exalted, said (We have sent down to you the Book so that you may explain to the people) and (to bring them out of darkness into light) and similar expressions. And those who narrated it with the mīm included only intended that Allāh guided him to the people. It is close."