third: the narration of ʿAlī ibn ʿĀbis, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sulaymān, and Muḥammad ibn Rabīʿah al-Kilābī with al-Dāraqutnī. These are five narrators, most of whom are agreed upon for their reliability, and all of them explicitly stated that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb heard from Tamīm. Yaḥyá ibn Ḥamzah disagreed with them and inserted Qabīṣah between them. Thus, the matter does not deviate from what Ibn al-Turkumānī said: "If the matter is as Abū Nuʿaym and Wakīʿ mentioned, it is to be understood that he heard from him both directly and indirectly. If it is established that he did not hear from him nor meet him, then the intermediary—Qabīṣah—is trustworthy and undoubtedly lived during the time of Tamīm, so his ʿanʿanah is considered connected. Therefore, I do not understand the meaning of al-Bayhaqī's statement: (Thus, the ḥadīth returns to being mursal with the mention of Qabīṣah) ?" In summary, the weakening of the ḥadīth of Tamīm due to disconnection is not strong, and in my view, its weakening due to ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿUmar is more appropriate and apparent, due to the previously mentioned criticism, and perhaps this is the reason for the difference in its isnād. However, despite this, his ḥadīth does not descend from being a witness to the first path from Ibn Abī Umāmah, and thus, the ḥadīth, at the very least, is ḥasan, as Ibn al-Qayyim explicitly stated in "Tahdhīb al-Sunan" (4/186). Abū Zurʿah al-Dimashqī preceded him in this, saying: "This is a ḥasan, connected ḥadīth, and I have not seen any of the scholars reject it." This is also mentioned in "Tahdhīb Ibn Ḥajar." And Allāh knows best. Further supporting the narration of the group from ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿUmar is that Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī also followed him from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb from Tamīm al-Dārī. It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī (1274), al-Ḥākim, and al-Bayhaqī through the route of Abū Bakr al-Ḥanafī, who reported from Yūnus ibn Abī Isḥāq from his father with it. And al-Ḥākim said: