and it was affirmed by al-Zabīdī in his commentary on "al-Iḥyāʾ" (7/270), just as al-Mundhirī affirmed Ibn Ḥibbān's authentication in "al-Targhīb" (2/173). Likewise, al-Ḥāfiẓ supported it, but he indicated that there is a flaw in it, though it is not detrimental. He said in the biography of (Sabrā) in "al-Iṣābah": "He has a ḥadīth with al-Nasāʾī with a ḥasan isnād, except that there is a discrepancy in its isnād." I said: It is a minor discrepancy that does not affect [the authenticity], and al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī pointed to it in the biography of (Sabrā) in "al-Tahdhīb," as he traced it from the route of Aḥmad, and then said: "Muḥammad ibn Faḍl followed him from Mūsá ibn al-Musayyib. And Ṭāriq ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz narrated it from Muḥammad ibn ʿAjlān from Mūsá ibn al-Musayyib from Sālim ibn Abī al-Jaʿd from Jābir ibn Abī Sabrā from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)." And he mentioned something similar in "Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf" (3/264). I said previously: This disagreement does not affect [the authenticity], because Muḥammad ibn ʿAjlān does not oppose the two trustworthy narrators ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAqīl and the corroboration of Muḥammad ibn Faḍl, especially since there is well-known criticism of Ibn ʿAjlān. This is said even if the contradiction from him were authentic, as the narrator from him, Ṭāriq ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, is also criticized. He is Ṭāriq ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Ṭāriq al-Rabīʿī, as he is named in "al-Jarḥ," and it was said about his father: "I did not see any harm in his ḥadīth in the amount of what I saw of his ḥadīth." And he was attributed in "al-Thiqāt" (8/327) to his grandfather, saying: "Ṭāriq ibn Ṭāriq al-Makkī," and it was said: "He might contradict the reliable narrators in narrations." Similarly, in "Tartīb al-Thiqāt" by Ibn Qaṭlūbughā (1/303/2) and in "Lisān..