trustworthy and truthful. I say: even though he is trustworthy as you have seen, someone more reliable and more precise than him differed with him in his isnād. Al-Nasāʾī said after his previous narration: "ʿAmr ibn Zurārah informed us, saying: Ismāʿīl informed us, saying: Yūnus ibn ʿUbayd narrated to us from Jarīr ibn Yazīd from Abū Zurʿah who said: Abū Hurayrah said: Establishing a ḥadd..." This ʿAmr ibn Zurārah is the son of Wāqid al-Naysābūrī, the reciter and memorizer, and they have unanimously agreed on describing him as trustworthy. In fact, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (who is Ibn Ḥabīb al-Naysābūrī, the trustworthy and knowledgeable) said about him: "Trustworthy, trustworthy." He is undoubtedly more reliable than Ibn Qudāmah, about whom it was said: "There is no harm in him," "truthful." Therefore, the two shaykhs used him as evidence, unlike the aforementioned, and he differed with him in two places: the first is that he stopped it at Abū Hurayrah, while the other raised it. The other difference is that he named the shaykh of Yūnus ibn ʿUbayd as Jarīr ibn Zayd, while the other named him ʿAmr ibn Saʿīd. The latter is trustworthy, and the former is weak as previously mentioned. When they differ in naming, the preferred narration is that of Ibn Zurārah because he is more reliable than his opponent. If this is the case, then this narration reverts to being from the first route, which is weak as you know. Then I saw that Ibn Zurārah has a corroborator, who is al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad al-Zaʿfarānī. Al-Muḥāmalī narrated it from him in "al-Amālī" (1/72/1). Yes, the ḥadīth is ḥasan due to other supporting evidence, as it has a witness from the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, raised with the wording: "A ḥadd established on earth is purer in it than rain for forty days." It was recorded by Samawīh in "al-Fawāʾid" and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" and "al-Awsaṭ" with an isnād. Al-Mundhirī and al-ʿIrāqī said: