a Companion. The scholars, who are the reference point for knowledge in this matter, have confirmed his narration from some of them without indicating the slightest suggestion of non-hearing, as is their custom with those they document. I have already mentioned at the beginning of this analysis the authentication by al-Tirmidhī of the ḥadīth of Abū al-Mutawakkil from ʿĀʾishah as an intrinsic authentication, and she passed away before Abū Hurayrah, as previously noted. This means that he met her and that there is no break between him and her. The same applies to his narration from Abū Hurayrah, as is evident to the scholars; because it is established among them that contemporaneity suffices to prove connection, as is established in the science of terminology. What further confirms this is that when al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAlāʾī mentioned Abū al-Mutawakkil in his book ".. Aḥkām al-Marāsīl," he only added (294/450): "Abū Ḥātim said: He did not hear anything from ʿUmar—may Allāh be pleased with him." This means: he heard from the other Companions previously mentioned, as is apparent, including Abū Hurayrah—may Allāh be pleased with him. Secondly: his statement: "as clarified by the narration of Ibn Mardawayh as in 'Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr' ..." I say: it contains deceitful concealment; because in 'Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr' the mentioned clarification does not exist, but rather the opposite of what he misled the readers with his concealment; for he quoted the narration of Ibn Mardawayh with his isnād from Abū al-Mutawakkil: that Abū Hurayrah had the key to the charity house... This apparently supports the claim of disconnection, but al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr refuted it by following it with the connected narration of al-Nasāʾī; like this ḥadīth—the ḥadīth of the chapter—from the path of Ismāʿīl ibn Muslim from Abū al-Mutawakkil from Abū Hurayrah, and he said after it: