"unknown". I said: someone like him should not be used as evidence, at the very least. Ismāʿīl ibn Marzūq is al-Murādī al-Kaʿbī al-Miṣrī; Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" and al-Ṭaḥāwī critiqued him, but al-Ḥāfiẓ found the isnād of another ḥadīth from his path to be clean. As for Aḥmad ibn Ismāʿīl, I do not know him now, and in "Tārīkh Baghdād" there are several narrators with this name. The third: from Abū al-ʿAlāʾ al-Khaffāf from Ḥabīb ibn Abī Ḥabīb from Anas ibn Mālik who said: and he mentioned it similarly, stopping at him. This is what al-Tirmidhī referred to earlier. Al-Wāsitī also recorded it in his "Tārīkh" (p. 40) through two paths from him. This Ḥabīb is Ibn Abī Ḥabīb al-Bajalī al-Baṣrī, a resident of Kūfah; Ṭuʿmah ibn ʿAmr al-Jaʿfarī and ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad al-ʿAnqazī also narrated from him. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" and al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "acceptable", meaning in follow-up, and he was followed as previously mentioned. As for Abū al-ʿAlāʾ al-Khaffāf, whose name is Khālid ibn Ṭahmān, he is truthful, but he had become confused. Then al-Wāsitī narrated it from the path of Muʾammal ibn Ismāʿīl from Sufyān from Khālid from Abū ʿAmīrah from Anas ibn Mālik in a similar manner. And this Abū ʿAmīrah is trustworthy, and he is the son of Anas ibn Mālik. Khālid is the previously mentioned Ibn Ṭahmān, and it seems he was inconsistent in his isnād, narrating it sometimes from Abū ʿAmīrah from Anas, and sometimes directly from Anas without mentioning Abū ʿAmīrah, and perhaps this is due to his confusion. I said: In summary, although these paths individually are not free from defect, collectively they..