"it is not narrated from Ibn al-Zubayr except with this isnād, and Harmalah was unique in narrating it." I said: He is trustworthy, from the men of Muslim, and those above him are trustworthy from the men of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim]. Muḥammad ibn Naṣr is Ibn Ḥumayd al-Wāziʿ al-Bazzār, and others besides al-Ṭabarānī named him Aḥmad, as mentioned by al-Khaṭīb (vol. 3, biography 1411, and vol. 5, biography 2625) and he said: He was trustworthy. And al-Haythamī said about the ḥadīth (2/96): "al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in 'al-Awsaṭ' and its men are the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ." I said: So the isnād is authentic if Ibn Jurayj heard it from ʿAṭāʾ, for he was known to practice tadlīs and he narrated it with ʿanʿanah [ambiguous transmission], but his statement at the end of the ḥadīth: "And I saw ʿAṭāʾ doing that" suggests that he received it directly from him, because it is very unlikely that he heard it from him through an intermediary, then saw him acting upon what he narrated from him, and yet did not ask him about the ḥadīth nor elevate it. This is very unlikely, so the correct view is that the isnād is authentic. The ḥadīth was also extracted by al-Ḥākim (1/214) and from him by al-Bayhaqī (3/106) through the route of Saʿīd ibn al-Ḥakam ibn Abī Maryam, who informed me that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb narrated it. And al-Ḥākim said: "Authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs." Al-Dhahabī agreed with him, and it is as they said. Supporting its authenticity is the practice of the Companions with it after the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), among them Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, Zayd ibn Thābit, and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd. 1 - Al-Bayhaqī narrated (2/90) from Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Hishām,