and this is a weak isnād; ʿAṭāʾ had become confused. ʿĀṣim ibn ʿAlī and his father both have weakness, and his son is better than him. Al-Suyūṭī also attributed it to Abū al-Shaykh in "al-ʿAẓamah," so it appears that it is considered marfūʿ by him. If that is the case, I do not think its isnād is better than this. In summary, the ḥadīth, with all its routes, is ḥasan in my view. And Allāh knows best.

"The expiation for every quarrel is two rakʿahs." It was narrated by Tamām al-Rāzī in "al-Fawāʾid" (141/1) from Aḥmad ibn Abī Rajāʾ, who reported from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Yamāmī, who reported from ʿUmar ibn Yūnus al-Yamāmī, who reported from Yaḥyá ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Ḥārithī, who reported from Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr, who reported from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAmr al-Awzāʿī, who told me from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Qays from Abū Hurayrah as marfūʿ. It was also narrated by Ibn al-Aʿrābī in "Muʿjam" (178/2): ʿAbbās (meaning) al-Dūrī informed us, Abū ʿĀṣim informed us, al-Awzāʿī informed us with it. I said: This isnād is ḥasan; all its men are trustworthy, and ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Qays has a slight weakness in memory, but his ḥadīth does not fall below the rank of ḥasan, if Allāh wills. The ḥāfiẓ said: "Truthful, but he has errors." It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (7651) and Ibn ʿAsākir (14/308/1) from Maslamah ibn ʿAlī from Khālid ibn Dihqān from Kuhayl ibn Ḥarmalah from Abū Umāmah al-Bāhilī as marfūʿ. Maslamah ibn ʿAlī, who is al-Khushnī, is abandoned, and al-Haythamī criticized it (2/251), so the main reliance is on the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu). (Liḥāʾ) perhaps refers to quarreling and disputing, as in "al-Nihāyah": "I was forbidden from..