al-Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān from his father, from al-Aʿmash, from Shaqīq ibn Salamah, from ʿAmr ibn Sharḥabīl, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, as a marfūʿ ḥadīth. This isnād is authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, and Shaqīq ibn Salamah is Abū Wāʾil. Wakīʿ also narrated it from al-Aʿmash, from Abū Wāʾil: ʿAmr ibn Sharḥabīl said, and he mentioned it as a maqṭūʿ narration! It was recorded by al-Bayhaqī. The ruling is for the one who narrated it as marfūʿ and connected. Al-Fayḍ ibn Wathīq al-Thaqafī said: ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Thaqafī informed us, saying: ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Banānī informed us from ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah, from Abū Wāʾil, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, as a marfūʿ narration with its second part. It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" (no. 755) and he said: "No one narrated it from ʿĀṣim except ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Banānī from the people of Basra, and al-Fayḍ ibn Wathīq al-Thaqafī was unique in narrating it." I say: His condition is acceptable, if Allāh wills, as al-Dhahabī said, but his teacher ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Banānī, I could not find a biography for him. (Note): al-Mundhirī included the ḥadīth in "al-Targhīb" (3/203) only from the narration of al-Ṭabarānī, which gave the impression that it is not found with any of the authors of the Sunan. Al-Haythamī followed him in this—as is his habit—and included it in "al-Majmaʿ" (7/297) and criticized it due to al-Fayḍ. Had he remembered that it is with al-Nasāʾī, he would not have included it because it contradicts his criteria for it. There is another error regarding al-Mundhirī, which is his inclusion of al-Ṭabarānī's narration with its weak isnād and abbreviated text, without including al-Nasāʾī's narration with its authentic isnād and complete text. The one protected is the one whom Allāh protects.