I said: It becomes clear from this investigation that most narrators affirm the intermediary between Ibn Abī Fudayk and ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn al-Muṭṭalib. Therefore, the statement of Abū Ḥātim in the first aspect: "It is more likely," is not acceptable, and al-Ḥāfiẓ indicated its rejection by saying in "Tahdhīb": "An intermediary has been omitted between Ibn Abī Fudayk and ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz." The other issue is the difference in the isnād of the ḥadīth to the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam): is it ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥanṭab or his father Ḥanṭab? Ibn Abī Fudayk said in all his narrations from him: it is ʿAbd Allāh, and Jaʿfar ibn Musāfir narrated from him through al-Mughīrah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān: it is Ḥanṭab, as mentioned earlier in al-Ḥāfiẓ's words. There is no doubt in my mind that the first is more likely, because it is the narration of the majority, so the opposition of Jaʿfar ibn Musāfir is not considered, especially since some have criticized his memory, as indicated by al-Ḥāfiẓ in "Taqrīb": "Truthful, but sometimes errs." He also differed in another part of the isnād, as he made the teacher of Ibn Abī Fudayk al-Mughīrah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, which none of them mentioned, but this discrepancy is easy to handle, because it is possible that this al-Mughīrah is among those teachers referred to by Duḥaym in his narration from Ibn Abī Fudayk. Then I found a corroborator for Jaʿfar with Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr in "al-Istiʿāb" (1/401 - al-Nahḍah) who said: "And this al-Mughīrah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān is al-Ḥizāmī, weak, not al-Makhzūmī the jurist of opinion, and that one is trustworthy." So if it is more likely that the ḥadīth is from the musnad of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥanṭab, is he a Companion or not? There is a difference of opinion on this, and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr affirmed his companionship, which is implied by his statement in al-Ḥākim's narration