and ʿAbd al-Munʿim is a Basran shaykh." Al-ʿUqaylī said, "No one follows him (meaning ʿAbd al-Munʿim) and he is rejected in ḥadīth, and he was followed by someone even weaker." Likewise, al-Bukhārī said in "al-Tārīkh al-Ṣaghīr" (204) that he is rejected in ḥadīth. Al-Bayhaqī said, "This is how a group narrated from ʿAbd al-Munʿim ibn Naʿīm Abū Saʿīd. Al-Bukhārī said he is rejected in ḥadīth, and Yaḥyá ibn Muslim al-Bakkāʾ al-Kūfī was weakened by Yaḥyá ibn Maʿīn." It seems al-Bayhaqī is indicating by saying "This is how..." that the group has been contradicted, and indeed it is so, as al-Ḥākim narrated it (1/204) through the route of ʿAlī ibn Ḥammād ibn Abī Ṭālib who reported from ʿAbd al-Munʿim ibn Naʿīm al-Riyāḥī who reported from ʿAmr ibn Fāʾid al-Aswārī who reported from Yaḥyá ibn Muslim. He inserted ʿAmr ibn Fāʾid between ʿAbd al-Munʿim and Yaḥyá ibn Muslim, and said, "There is no one criticized in its isnād except ʿAmr ibn Fāʾid, and the rest are Basran shaykhs, and this is a strange sunnah for which I know no isnād other than this." Al-Dhahabī followed up by saying, "I said: Al-Dāraqutnī said: ʿAmr ibn Fāʾid is abandoned." I said: They both missed that it also contains ʿAbd al-Munʿim, who is very weak, as indicated by al-Bukhārī's previous statement: rejected in ḥadīth. Al-Dhahabī said in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-al-Matrūkīn": "Al-Dāraqutnī and others weakened him." Then I saw that al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī in "Takhrīj al-Iḥyāʾ" (1/157) followed up on al-Ḥākim in a manner similar to what we mentioned