in summary, the ḥadīth is authentic from the narration of Sālim from Subrah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu), and those previously mentioned have authenticated it. Ibn Kathīr used it as evidence in "al-Tafsīr" (2/204), and Ibn al-Qayyim included it in "Ighāthat al-Lahfān" as an accepted narration. As for the commentator (Ibn ʿAbd al-Manān), who specializes in weakening authentic ḥadīths, he asserted in his commentary (1/134) that its isnād is weak, contradicting all those we mentioned who authenticated it and used it as evidence. He justified this by claiming that Sālim ibn Abī al-Jaʿd did not explicitly state hearing from Subrah. He clung to the opinion of al-Bukhārī and others that contemporaneity is not sufficient in a muʿanʿan ḥadīth or isnād to establish its continuity; rather, there must be evidence of a meeting, even once, contrary to Muslim and others who suffice with contemporaneity. The truth is that this issue is one of the complex matters, and therefore, scholars' opinions have differed on it, even within the same scholar. Some align with al-Bukhārī, and some with Muslim. He has clarified his viewpoint and elaborated comprehensively, refuting his opponents, leaving no room for doubt about the correctness of his position, as seen in the introduction to his book "al-Ṣaḥīḥ." Just as he differed with his teacher on the issue, scholars after them have also disagreed, with some supporting and others opposing, as explained in the books of the science of terminology, in the discussion of (the muʿanʿan isnād). Due to the precision of the issue, I observed that Imām al-Nawawī, who in the introduction to his commentary on "Muslim" supported the opinion of Imām al-Bukhārī, adopted the view of Imām Muslim in some of his books on "terminology." He said in explaining the muʿanʿan isnād in his book "al-Taqrīb": ".. and it is so-and-so from so-and-so, it is said: it is mursal. The correct view, which is acted upon and stated by the majority of the scholars of ḥadīth, fiqh, and uṣūl, is that it is connected, provided that the muʿanʿan is not a mudallis, and provided that it is possible for them to have met each other. There is a disagreement on the requirement of proving the meeting, long companionship, and knowledge of narrating from him..."