" a trustworthy follower." Similarly, the ḥāfiẓ said he is trustworthy. I say: The rest of the men in the isnād are well-known trustworthy individuals, so the isnād is good and without any defect. Therefore, the statement of Ibn Abī Ḥātim in "al-ʿIlal" (2/308) from his father: "This is a rejected ḥadīth" is refuted. Similarly, it was reported by al-Manāwī from Ibn al-Qayyim that he said: "A defective ḥadīth, narrated by al-Tirmidhī who mentioned its defect, and I do not remember now what was said about it except that it is from the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muslim ibn Jundub from his father from Ibn ʿUmar." I say: This is also refuted because it is merely a claim. Then al-Manāwī said: "Ibn Ḥibbān said: Its isnād is ḥasan, but it is not according to al-Bukhārī's conditions." (Note) The name of this ʿAbd Allāh is omitted from the narration of Ibn Ḥibbān, and it appears with him as: "Muslim ibn Jundub from his father from Ibn ʿUmar..." The omission is not from the copyist, but the narration appeared to him in this way, as he mentioned it in the biography of "Jundub ibn Salāmah" and said: "He is also called Ibn Salām al-Madanī, narrates from Ibn ʿUmar, and Muslim ibn Jundub narrated from him." Then he presented the ḥadīth. There is no doubt that this narration is anomalous, as it contradicts the other narrations that unanimously agree it is from the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muslim from his father from Ibn ʿUmar, and there is no mention of Jundub in it. And Allāh knows best. I have found another route for the ḥadīth from Ibn ʿUmar. Al-Ruyānī said in "Musnad" (p. 249/2): ʿAbbās ibn Muḥammad informed us, Abū al-Rabīʿ Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd ibn Rashīd informed us, Khālid ibn Ziyād al-Dimashqī informed us from Zuhayr ibn Muḥammad al-Makkī from Nāfiʿ from him. Its men are trustworthy except for this Khālid, who is unknown, and Zuhayr ibn Muḥammad is Abū al-Mundhir al-Tamīmī al-Khurasānī, the ḥāfiẓ said: