mentioning any criticism without any commendation. And Makḥūl did not hear from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr. It has also been narrated through a third route from him, narrated by ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muʾammal from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather as a marfūʿ ḥadīth. It was recorded by al-Khaṭīb in "al-Taqyīd" (p. 69). And ʿAbd Allāh is weak as previously mentioned. And it was narrated by Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyá from Ibn Abī Dhīʾb from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb in the same manner. It was recorded by al-Rāmahurmuzī in "al-Muḥaddith al-Fāṣil" (fol. 93/1) and by al-Khaṭīb, who said: "ʿAlī ibn ʿUmar (meaning Imām al-Dāraquṭnī) said: Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyá was the only one to narrate it from Ibn Abī Dhīʾb." I say: And Ibn Abī Dhīʾb is trustworthy, so it is a strong corroboration, except that Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyá—who is Abū Yaḥyá al-Taymī—is a liar and fabricator, so it is not to be rejoiced over. 3 - As for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, it is narrated by Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar ibn Abī al-ʿAṭṭāf from Abū al-Zinād from al-Aʿraj from him as a marfūʿ ḥadīth. It was recorded by Ibn ʿAdī in "al-Kāmil" (fol. 101/1), and he said: "Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar's ḥadīth is rejected." And al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "Weak." In summary, all these routes are defective, both marfūʿ and mawqūf, and the best of them is the second route narrated by Ibn Abī Uways ... from Anas and the corroboration narrated by ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muʾammal