I said: this is a blatant lie and a deceitful misrepresentation to the readers, for Nāfiʿ ibn Jubayr is a well-known and trustworthy Tābiʿī. Even if he had said: "Its isnād is mursal and authentic," he would still be lying, for there are two defects in the chain that prevent it from being authentic. The first: which is apparent to anyone knowledgeable in this science, and I do not think it is something hidden from al-Ghumārī, but it is bias! It is the statement of Ibn Jurayj: he said: Nāfiʿ said. For Ibn Jurayj was among those known for tadlīs and frequently engaged in it, as mentioned in "al-Taḥṣīl" (p. 123) by al-ʿAlāʾī. Thus, his ḥadīth is not accepted unless he explicitly states he heard it, especially since, as al-Dāraqutnī said: "His tadlīs is reprehensible; he only practices it in what he heard from someone criticized, like Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Yaḥyá and Mūsá ibn ʿUbaydah"! The other defect: ʿAbd al-Razzāq included it in "Kitāb al-Ṣalāh" from his "Muṣannaf" (1/532/2030), and this book is narrated from him by Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Dabarī (see p. 349 of it), and there is well-known discussion about his hearing from him. Al-Nasāʾī said in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" (p. 297/379) in the biography of ʿAbd al-Razzāq: "There is doubt about those who wrote from him in his later years." It is added in "al-Tahdhīb" about him: "He wrote strange ḥadīths from him." Al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mīzān" in the biography of Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Dabarī: "He heard from ʿAbd al-Razzāq his compilations when he was seven years old or so, but he narrated strange ḥadīths from ʿAbd al-Razzāq, leading to doubt whether they are from him alone or if they are known from what ʿAbd al-Razzāq uniquely narrated."