the second: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad al-Muḥāribī, and there are two paths from him: the first is from al-ʿAlāʾ ibn ʿAmr al-Ḥanafī: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad al-Muḥāribī narrated to us, Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr narrated it. It was recorded by al-Ḥākim (1/523), who said: "A ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth according to the conditions of Muslim," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him! I said: this is one of his errors, for this al-Ḥanafī is abandoned as al-Dhahabī himself stated in "al-Mīzān," where he also included a ḥadīth about the virtue of the Arabs, and said about it: "fabricated"; as mentioned earlier under number (160), and when al-Ḥākim also authenticated it, al-Dhahabī criticized him by saying: "al-ʿAlāʾ ibn ʿAmr al-Ḥanafī is not reliable." the second: Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl—who is Ibn Samurah al-Aḥmasī—: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad al-Muḥāribī narrated to us from Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr. It was recorded by al-Bazzār (4/59/3193): Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl narrated it to us. And he said: "We do not know it from the ḥadīth of Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr except through al-Muḥāribī." So he said! But it is refuted by what has been previously mentioned and what is to come, and all the men of its isnād are trustworthy, so the isnād is ḥasan due to the well-known disagreement regarding Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr; except that al-Muḥāribī was accused of tadlīs and he used the ambiguous term as you see, although he explicitly stated the narration in the first path; but it includes al-ʿAlāʾ who is abandoned, so it is not considered, and al-Haythamī's (10/178) refinement of al-Bazzār's isnād is not good! Yes, it is so with the following corroboration: