I said: al-Dhahabī concurred with him. However, there is a consideration, as indicated by al-Tirmidhī's statement following it: "The ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah is not established, and nothing is authentic from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) in this chapter. Abū Muʿādh, they say, is Sulaymān ibn Arqam, and he is considered weak by the scholars of ḥadīth." I said: This is correct, that Abū Muʿādh is Sulaymān ibn Arqam, and not, as al-Ḥākim said, al-Fuḍayl ibn Maysarah. This is supported by two points: the first is that Ibn Arqam is mentioned in his biography as having narrated from al-Zuhrī, and from him Zayd ibn al-Ḥabbāb. This is not mentioned in the biography of Ibn Maysarah. The second is that Ibn ʿAdī included him in the biography of Sulaymān ibn Arqam, and for this reason, al-Bayhaqī asserted that it is him, saying: "He is abandoned." Then he presented the second chain, which is: the second [narration] from Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, recorded by Ibn ʿAlī al-Nīsābūrī in "al-Fawāʾid" (239/1) and al-Bayhaqī from Abū al-ʿAynāʾ Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim, who reported from Abū Zayd Saʿīd ibn Aws, who reported from Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ from Anas ibn Mālik from him. I said: This isnād is very weak. Abū al-ʿAynāʾ admitted that he and al-Jāḥiẓ fabricated the ḥadīth of Fadak! Al-Dāraqutnī declared him weak, and al-Bayhaqī said: "Its isnād is not strong; rather, Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ narrated it from Iyas ibn Jaʿfar, who said that a man narrated to him," and then mentioned the ḥadīth. He then presented their chain from the route of ʿAbd al-Wārith from Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ, with it being mursal, and said: "This is what is preserved from the ḥadīth of ʿAbd al-Wārith." Then he narrated it from the route of Abū Maʿmar ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, who said: I asked ʿAbd al-Wārith about the ḥadīth