I said: Its narrators are trustworthy except for Ibn ʿArzab, who is unknown. Perhaps al-Tirmidhī's grading of it as ḥasan is because he knew it was corroborated, as indicated by the previous statement of al-Thaqafī: "It was narrated by al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab and others." Abū Burdah also corroborated it from Abū Mūsá, as in the first path, and its narrators are trustworthy except for al-Ḥārithī Abū Yaḥyá, who is weak, as al-Dāraqutnī said. Thus, the ḥadīth, with all its paths, is ḥasan at the very least.

- "He liked that the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār would be near him to learn from him." It was recorded by Ibn Mājah (977), Ibn Ḥibbān (87), al-Ḥākim (1/218), and Aḥmad from various paths from Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl from Anas ibn Mālik, who mentioned it as marfūʿ. Al-Ḥākim said: "Authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him, and it is as they said.

- "When he was residing, he would perform iʿtikāf during the last ten days of Ramaḍān, and when he traveled, he would perform iʿtikāf for twenty days the following year." It was recorded by Imām Aḥmad (3/104), and from him by Ibn Ḥibbān (918), narrated to us by Ibn Abī ʿAdī from Ḥumayd from Anas, who mentioned it as marfūʿ. He said: "I have not heard this ḥadīth except from Ibn Abī ʿAdī from Ḥumayd from Anas." I said: Its isnād is authentic and according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs, and the statement of al-Saffārīnī in "Sharḥ al-Thulāthiyyāt" (1/634): "I said: Its isnād is ḥasan as indicated by al-Jalāl al-Suyūṭī, and al-Manāwī said in 'Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr.'" This is a strange shortcoming, especially from al-Suyūṭī, for Ibn ʿAdī, whose name is Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm, is trustworthy and relied upon in the "Ṣaḥīḥayn," and likewise is Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl. If it is said that it was downgraded from authentic to ḥasan because Ḥumayd was a mudallis and did not explicitly state hearing, the response is twofold: