and Muḥammad ibn Ḥafṣ, it appears, is al-Waṣābī al-Ḥimṣī, Abū ʿUbayd, who narrated from Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayr and others. Ibn Abī Ḥātim said (3/2/237): "I met him and intended to visit him and listen to him, but some people of Ḥimṣ told me: 'He is not truthful, and he did not meet Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayr,' so I left him." Ibn Mandah said: "Weak." Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" and said: "He is obscure." The ḥadīth was narrated by al-Daylamī in "Musnad al-Firdaws" from the narration of Anas as in "al-Qawl al-Badīʿ" (p. 222) and he did not comment on its isnād. Al-Munāwī decisively stated its weakness, saying: "In it is Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Dīnūrī, whom al-Dhahabī mentioned in 'al-Ḍuʿafāʾ': 'His ḥadīth is rejected.'" He decisively stated that the narration of al-Ṭabarānī mentioned earlier has a good isnād. In summary, the ḥadīth, with all these chains and supporting evidence, does not fall below the rank of ḥasan, inshāʾ Allāh, at the very least. Then I reviewed its isnād with al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" (4/448 - Islamic University microfilm), and it is from the route of ʿĀmir ibn Yasār, who narrated to us from ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jazarī, from Abū Isḥāq al-Hamdānī, from al-Ḥārith and ʿĀṣim ibn Ḍamrah, from ʿAlī, as a mawqūf narration. I said: This isnād's narrators are trustworthy as previously mentioned by al-Haythamī, but Abū Isḥāq - who is al-Sabīʿī - was a mudallis and had mixed up, yet this does not harm the supporting evidence. And Allāh knows best. Among its supporting evidence is what al-Tirmidhī extracted (1/97) from Abū Qurrah al-Asadī from Saʿīd ibn