and if you understand this; there was a disagreement regarding the narrator of this ḥadīth from the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) and the one who said to Ibn al-Zubayr: Beware of deviation in... Ibn Kunasah said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, while Hāshim said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr. This is more likely; because Hāshim is more reliable than Ibn Kunasah as you know from the biography of the ḥāfiẓ for both of them, and from the extraction of al-Haythamī for their ḥadīth. This is supported by three matters: first: Ibn Kunasah was inconsistent in his isnād, as he narrated it once from Isḥāq ibn Saʿīd as previously mentioned. And once he said: Thana Isḥāq ibn ʿĪsá ibn ʿĀṣim from his father said ... and he mentioned it like his previous narration. It was recorded by al-Ḥākim (2/388) through the route of al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Faḍl al-Bajalī: Thana Muḥammad ibn Kunasah with it. And he said: "The isnād is authentic." It was refuted by al-Dhahabī by saying: "I said: [Abū Ḥātim said:] Ibn Kunasah is not relied upon." Al-Ḥusayn, the narrator from him, is an eminent scholar, interpreter, and linguist, with a biography in "Siyar al-Aʿlām" (13/414) by al-Dhahabī, and therefore the ḥāfiẓ criticized him in "al-Lisān" for including him in "al-Mīzān" and said: "It would have been better not to mention him due to his eminence." Refer to "al-Lisān" (2/307-308). The second: Hāshim ibn al-Qāsim was followed by Bishr ibn al-Walīd al-Kindī: Na Isḥāq ibn Saʿīd with it. It was recorded by Ibn ʿAsākir in "Tārīkh Dimashq" (9/2)