it should be corrected. Al-Ḥākim said following the ḥadīth of the chapter: "Its isnād is authentic." Al-Dhahabī agreed with him. This indicates that both considered ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Masʿūd to be trustworthy. Ibn Ḥibbān also deemed him trustworthy (5/106) and did not mention any narrator from him other than Jaʿfar, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim did the same. However, when al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned him in "al-Taʿjīl," he said: "Jaʿfar ibn Iyas and others narrated from him." This was overlooked by the commentator on "al-Iḥsān" (10/447 - printed by the institution), who said: "No one narrated from him except Jaʿfar ibn Iyas!" No one before him said this! Although he said afterward: "He is mentioned by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (5/285) and 'al-Taʿjīl' (p. 258)," which contains an obvious misrepresentation to the discerning reader. As for "al-Taʿjīl," it is clear because he denied what was affirmed, and regarding "al-Jarḥ," he did not deny his denial, but merely mentioned that Jaʿfar narrated from him! There is a vast difference between the two!! Moreover, he was not the only one to narrate this ḥadīth. Al-Ṭabarānī included it in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (3/40-42) and Ibn ʿAsākir in "al-Tārīkh" (4/501-503) through various chains from Abū Ḥāzim from Abū Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: and he mentioned the ḥadīth of the chapter. Some of these chains are also found in Aḥmad (2/288) and ʿAbd al-Razzāq (3/471/6369), and in his version, there is a story I mentioned in "Aḥkām al-Janāʾiz" (p. 100-101). Al-Ḥākim authenticated it, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him, and it is as they said.