I said: This chain of narration has two defects: the first is the unknown status of Jamīl ibn Abī Maimūnah, as Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned him from his father’s narration from Ibn Abī Zakariyyā al-Khuzāʿī. And from him Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, then he said: "He narrated from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib. Al-Layth ibn Saʿd narrated from him." Al-Haythamī also pointed this out, saying (3/209): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ', and it includes Jamīl ibn Abī Maimūnah, who was mentioned by Ibn Abī Ḥātim without any criticism or endorsement, and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in (al-Thiqāt)." The second defect is the ʿanʿanah [ambiguous transmission] of Ibn Isḥāq, which al-Mundhirī hinted at, saying (2/166): "It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlá from the narration of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, and the rest of its chain is reliable." I said: I have found another chain for it from al-Laythī, as Yaḥyá ibn Ṣāʿid said in "Majlisān min al-Amālī" (folio 51/2): ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī narrated to us, saying: Abū Muʿāwiyah al-Ḍarīr informed us, saying: Hilāl ibn Maimūn al-Filasṭīnī narrated to us from ʿAṭāʾ ibn Yazīd al-Laythī with it. It was also recorded by Abū Nuʿaym in "Akhbār Aṣbahān" (2/21) through the route of Ibn Ṣāʿid with it, but he said: "al-Wāsiṭī" instead of "al-Filasṭīnī," which is an error by the scribe or printer. I said: This is a good chain; all its men are reliable, the men of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim], except for Hilāl ibn Maimūn al-Filasṭīnī, who was deemed trustworthy by Ibn Maʿīn and Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Nasāʾī said: there is no harm in him. As for Abū Ḥātim, he said: "He is not strong, but his ḥadīth is written." Ibn Ḥibbān has recorded several ḥadīths from him in "Ṣaḥīḥ," and these are their numbers (1160..