"a mudd is sufficient for ablution, and a ṣāʿ is sufficient for ghusl." I said: This isnād is good, and all its men are trustworthy, the men of Muslim, except for some weakness in the memory of Muʿāwiyah ibn Hishām, who is al-Qaṣṣār al-Kūfī, but he did not narrate it alone. Aḥmad said (3/264): Muʿāwiyah ibn ʿAmr narrated to us, saying: Zāʾidah narrated from Sufyān with it, except that he said: Jabr ibn ʿAbd Allāh narrated to me, which he reversed, and it is actually ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jabr, who is his grandfather, for he is ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jabr - and it is also said: Jābir. Ibn ʿAtīk al-Anṣārī as in "al-Tahdhīb." And Zāʾidah is ibn Qudāmah al-Thaqafī. And Muʿāwiyah ibn ʿAmr is ibn al-Muhallab al-Azdī, and both are trustworthy, from the men of the two Shaykhs, so the ḥadīth is authentic according to their criteria. 4 - As for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, it is narrated by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Bālsī from Khuṣayf from ʿIkrimah from him, raised [to the Prophet]. Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in "al-Awsaṭ" (p. 37) and said: "No one narrated it from Khuṣayf except ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz." I said: Imām Aḥmad accused him. So reliance is on what preceded it. (Note): Al-Munāwī criticized the narration of al-Tirmidhī (ḥadīth - 3) by saying in "Fayḍ al-Qadīr": "And in it is ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĪsá al-Baṣrī, he said in 'al-Kāshif': They weakened him." I said: And this is an error, for it is actually ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĪsá ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Anṣārī, and he is trustworthy, from the men of the two Shaykhs. Then he was followed by Sufyān as mentioned earlier - and he is al-Thawrī - so his statement in "al-Taysīr": "And its isnād is weak." is another mistake!