I said: Its isnād is good, and all its narrators are trustworthy, the narrators of Muslim, except for the shaykh of al-Ṭabarānī, who is ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz — he is al-Baghawī — a trustworthy ḥāfiẓ, and Ibrāhīm is Ibn Yazīd al-Nakhaʿī. And someone might say: It is mursal and disconnected between Ibrāhīm and Ibn Masʿūd, so how can its isnād be considered good? I say: Yes, but a group of the imams have authenticated his mursal narrations, and al-Bayhaqī specified this regarding what he narrated from Ibn Masʿūd, as he mentioned in "al-Tahdhīb." And the statement of al-Bayhaqī is correct, due to the statement of al-Aʿmash: I said to Ibrāhīm: Attribute it to Ibn Masʿūd for me, so Ibrāhīm said: If I narrate to you from a man from ʿAbd Allāh, it is what I heard, and if I say: ʿAbd Allāh said, it is from more than one person from ʿAbd Allāh. This is explicit that what he narrates from Ibn Masʿūd has more than one intermediary between him and Ibn Masʿūd, and even if they are unknown, their anonymity is excused, because they are a group on one hand and from the tābiʿīn — and perhaps even from their seniors — on the other hand. This is another benefit I previously mentioned elsewhere, which I cannot recall now. What strengthens this story between Ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb is that it is narrated from the ḥadīth of Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) and Ibn ʿAbbās (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhumā). 1 - As for the ḥadīth of Jābir, it was extracted by Abū Yaʿlá in "his Musnad" (2/497-498) and from him by Ibn Ḥibbān (577) and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" (1/252/2) through the route of Yaʿqūb al-Qummī from ʿĪsá ibn Jāriyah from Jābir with a similar narration. Al-Mundhirī said (1/258): "It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlá with a good isnād and by Ibn Ḥibbān in (his Ṣaḥīḥ)." I said: Their isnād is potentially good, due to the well-known discussion regarding ʿĪsá ibn Jāriyah and Yaʿqūb ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Qummī. 2 - As for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, it was extracted by Ibn Khuzaymah in "his Ṣaḥīḥ" (1809) with an isnād