the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) was asked about the practice of nushrah, and he said: "It is from the work of Satan." I said: This isnād is authentic; its narrators are reliable, the narrators of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim], except for ʿAqīl ibn Muʿaqqil, who is the son of Munabbih al-Yamānī, and he is unanimously considered trustworthy. Therefore, the statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ about him being "truthful" is based on this, and thus he limited himself in "al-Fatḥ" (10/233) to declaring its isnād as good in this ḥadīth, which I see as an unjustified shortcoming. It is possible that al-Ḥāfiẓ was influenced by two matters: the first is that the ḥadīth in "Muṣannaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq" (11/13/19762) is mawqūf [stopped] as follows: ʿAqīl ibn Muʿaqqil informed us from Hammām (thus) ibn Munabbih, who said: Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh was asked about nushrah, and he said: It is from the work of Satan. I said: Thus it appeared as mawqūf, and it mentioned (Hammām ibn Munabbih) instead of (Wahb ibn Munabbih), and they are brothers from whom ʿAqīl narrated. I suspect this is an error like the stopping, and I think it is from the narrator from ʿAbd al-Razzāq, who is Abū Yaʿqūb Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbbād al-Dabarī, the narrator of a large section of (Kitāb al-Jāmiʿ) from "al-Muṣannaf" (see (10/379) of "al-Muṣannaf"), and he is criticized, so such a thing never affects the narration of Aḥmad from ʿAbd al-Razzāq as marfūʿ [elevated]. The other is that al-Bayhaqī cast doubt on its authenticity, saying afterward: "It was narrated from the Prophet ﷺ as mursal [a ḥadīth with a missing link], and it is more authentic." He refers to what was extracted by Ibn Abī Shaybah in "al-Muṣannaf" (8/29/3567) and al-Bazzār (3/393-394) through the route of Shuʿbah from Abū Rajāʾ, who said: I asked al-Ḥasan about nushrah, and he mentioned to me from the Prophet ﷺ, saying: "It is from the work of Satan."