I said: This is a good isnād; its men are trustworthy except for Khunays, about whom Ṣāliḥ Jazrah said: "Weak." Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt." Al-Būṣīrī was silent about it in "al-Zawāʾid" (8/1), but he stated in "al-Muqaddimah" that what he was silent about is questionable. 4 - As for the ḥadīth of Jābir, it was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" from his teacher al-Miqdām ibn Dāwūd, and Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd said he was trustworthy, but al-Nasāʾī and others weakened him. The rest of its men are from the men of the authentic collections, as stated by al-Haythamī (9/53), and from this route, it was narrated by Ibn ʿAsākir (13/24/1). 5 - As for the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd, it was narrated by al-Bazzār and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ," and in it is ʿAlī ibn ʿĀbis, who is weak. 6 - As for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar, it is narrated by Dāwūd ibn Mihrān al-Dabbāgh Abū Sulaymān: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mālik ibn Mughūl narrated to us from ʿUbayd Allāh from Nāfiʿ from him. It was narrated by al-Sahmī in "Tārīkh Jurjān" (77) and Ibn ʿAsākir (13/23/2), and Ibn Abī Ḥātim said (2/389) from his father: "This ḥadīth is false, meaning by this isnād, and he refused to narrate it to us, saying: Disregard it." I said: Its men are trustworthy except for ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mālik ibn Mughūl, who is a liar as Abū Dāwūd said, and al-Dāraquṭnī said: Abandoned. He is the flaw in this isnād, and I only mentioned it to clarify his condition. In summary, the ḥadīth with all its routes is authentic without doubt, because some of its routes are intrinsically good as you have seen, some can be used as supporting evidence, and others are severely weak, so we with