Abū Tawbah al-Rabīʿ ibn Nāfiʿ narrated to us, Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Jumaḥī narrated to us from Sahl from his father from Abū Hurayrah in a marfūʿ form. This isnād is good; its men are trustworthy, the men of Muslim, and there is some discussion about Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that does not harm, if Allāh wills. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Fatḥ" (10/122): "Most have declared him trustworthy, but some have criticized him due to his memory." And he said in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful but has errors, and Ibn Ḥibbān excessively weakened him." Abū Muḥammad al-Mukhalladī al-ʿAdl has recorded the ḥadīth in a shortened form in "al-Fawāʾid" (3/224/1) and al-Ḥākim (4/210) from this route and said: "Authentic according to the conditions of Muslim," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. Al-Manāwī critiqued it by saying: "But Ibn al-Qaṭṭān weakened it because it is from the narration of Saʿīd al-Jumaḥī from Sahl from his father, and Sahl and his father are unknown." End quote. However, my grandfather mentioned in his "Tadhkirah" that his teacher al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī issued a fatwá that its isnād is authentic according to the conditions of Muslim." I say: And this is correct, that it is according to the conditions of Muslim, for all its men are the men of his Ṣaḥīḥ, and what prevented us from ruling it authentic is only the weakness in Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān's memory. As for Ibn al-Qaṭṭān's weakening, it is based on his assumption that Saʿīd's teacher is Sahl, but it is not so; rather, it is Suhayl—diminutive—ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ as it is attributed in "al-Mustadrak," and he and his father are both trustworthy and known from the men of Muslim as well. The ḥadīth has supporting evidence from his actions (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) and his sayings, so see: (The best day to perform cupping) and (He used to perform cupping).