it was recorded by al-Mukhliṣ in "The Tenth of His Ḥadīth" (208/2) and by Ibn ʿAsākir (17/215/2) from al-Muʾammal ibn Ihāb from him with it. This is a good isnād; all its narrators are trustworthy, the narrators of the two Shaykhs, except for al-Muʾammal, who is truthful but has errors. It has a corroborating report from the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd, narrated by Yaḥyá ibn al-Mundhir, who informed us from Abū al-Ajlaḥ from al-Aʿmash from Yaḥyá ibn Wathāb from ʿAlqamah from him. It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (no. 10069). And Yaḥyá ibn al-Mundhir was weakened by al-Dāraqutnī and others. And (Abū al-Ajlaḥ) is as in the original, but perhaps the correct name is Ibn al-Ajlaḥ, for he narrates from al-Aʿmash, and he is ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ajlaḥ, who is truthful. It has also been narrated from Ibn Masʿūd as a mawqūf report. It was recorded by al-Rāmahurmuzī in "al-Muḥaddith al-Fāṣil" (p. 152 - manuscript of al-Ẓāhiriyyah) from Bishr ibn al-Walīd, who reported to us from Muḥammad ibn Ṭalḥah, who reported to us from Rūḥ about myself that I narrated to him a ḥadīth from Zubayd from Murrah from him with it. And Bishr ibn al-Walīd is weak. Similarly, it was narrated by Manṣūr ibn Zādhān from Saʿīd ibn Abī Burdah from his father from Abū Mūsá as a mawqūf report on him. It was recorded by Aḥmad in "al-Zuhd" (199). I say: Its isnād is also authentic as a mawqūf report, and it does not contradict the marfūʿ report because the narrator may sometimes not be inclined to raise it, so he stops it. Thus, it is authentic both as marfūʿ and mawqūf