I said: This isnād has weakness; Muʿāwiyah ibn Yaḥyá, who is al-Ṣadafī, was said by the ḥāfiẓ: "Weak, and what he narrated in al-Shām is better than what he narrated in al-Ray." He was followed by ʿAbbād ibn Kathīr from ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz from al-Zuhrī with it. It was recorded by al-Bāghandī in "Musnad ʿUmar" (p. 13) and al-Khaṭīb in "al-Mūḍiḥ" (2/146). And ʿAbbād ibn Kathīr, who is al-Filasṭīnī, is weak and is better than al-Baṣrī, who is abandoned. He was followed by ʿĪsá ibn Yūnus from Mālik from al-Zuhrī with it. It was recorded by al-Khaṭīb (8/4) and from him by Ibn ʿAsākir (4/327/1) through the route of al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb al-Asadī, who narrated to us from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sahm, who narrated to us from ʿĪsá ibn Yūnus. I said: Its narrators are trustworthy except for al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad; al-Khaṭīb translated him and mentioned that he narrated from many groups whom he named, and from him ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Ṭastī and Abū Bakr al-Shāfiʿī narrated, and he did not mention any criticism or endorsement, but it appears that there is an omission in the copy of "Tārīkh al-Khaṭīb"! For Ibn ʿAsākir quoted al-Khaṭīb's words about him and added among his narrators ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Maʿlá al-Shūnīzī, and said: "He said: And I knew nothing of him but good." And Ibn Sahm, who is al-Anṭākī. Al-Khaṭīb also translated him (2/310) and said: "And he was trustworthy." And Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned (2/2/5) from his father that Muslim narrated from him: it appears he means that he narrated from him outside the "Ṣaḥīḥ." In conclusion, this isnād is ḥasan, and it is not disrupted by the fact that Mālik recorded it in "al-Muwaṭṭaʾ."