and the first part of it was extracted by al-Bazzār (58 - his additions) through the route of Muḥammad ibn al-Faḍl: Ḥammād narrated to us from Layth from Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar with it. He said, "We do not know anyone who narrated it from Nāfiʿ except Layth." However, the ḥadīth is authentic because it has been transmitted through other routes separately: As for the first part, it was extracted by Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Khuzaymah (1566), and Ibn Ḥibbān (397) from the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās as marfūʿ, and in its isnād there is an unknown [narrator] which I clarified in "al-Taʿlīq al-Raghīb" (1/173), but it has many supporting evidences, some of which I pointed to there, and I extracted some in "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" (676). As for the second part of it, it has a supporting evidence from the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib, extracted by Abū Dāwūd, and in it is an unnamed Kūfan shaykh, which I extracted because of it in "Ḍaʿīf Abī Dāwūd" number (85). Another is from the ḥadīth of Muʿādh, extracted by al-Bayhaqī and others, and I discussed its isnād in "al-Taʿlīq al-Raghīb" also (1/175). (Note): The ḥadīth in its entirety was reported from Ibn ʿUmar as marfūʿ by al-Mundhirī, then he said (1/175): "It was narrated by al-Bazzār with a good isnād, and Ibn Ḥibbān in his "Ṣaḥīḥ," both with the first part. It was narrated in its entirety by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ." I said: There are some observations: The first: The isnād of al-Bazzār includes Layth ibn Abī Sulaym, who is weak as previously mentioned. The second: With Ibn Ḥibbān, it is from the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, not from Ibn ʿUmar, as mentioned earlier