from Ayyūb, from Ibn Jurayj, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar as a marfūʿ ḥadīth. Al-Ḥākim said: "Authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhārī," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him! Al-Mundhirī said (1/111): "And it is as he said, for ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ was the scribe of al-Layth, and even though there is some discussion about him, al-Bukhārī narrated from him in (al-Ṣaḥīḥ). This statement from al-Mundhirī is more appropriate than al-Dhahabī's unconditional agreement on the authenticity of the ḥadīth, especially since he included it in the biography of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ among the ḥadīths that were criticized." Ibn ʿAdī said after the ḥadīth: "I do not know anyone who narrated this isnād from Ibn Wahb (or perhaps it is Ibn Ayyūb) except Abū Ṣāliḥ, and in my opinion, his ḥadīth is sound, except that there are errors in his isnāds and matns, but he does not deliberately lie." Al-Baghawī said: "ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, the scribe of al-Layth, is truthful, but there are anomalies in his ḥadīth." Therefore, al-Būṣīrī said in "al-Zawāʾid" (Q 48/2): "Its isnād is weak due to the weakness of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ." The ḥadīth has another defect, which is the ʿanʿanah of Ibn Jurayj. Al-Bayhaqī said after it: "Yaḥyá ibn al-Mutawakkil narrated it from Ibn Jurayj from someone who narrated to him, from Nāfiʿ. Al-Bukhārī said: This is more likely." I said: It becomes clear that this isnād does not constitute proof,