ʿUbayd Allāh from Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar said: ... and he mentioned it. And from the route of Ibn Abī Shaybah: it was recorded by Aḥmad (2/108), and likewise by al-Dārimī in "Sunan" (2/120). It was also recorded by al-Tirmidhī (6/148/1880), and al-Ṭaḥāwī in "Sharḥ al-Maʿānī" (2/358) through another route from Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth with it. Al-Tirmidhī said: "A ṣaḥīḥ gharīb ḥadīth from the narration of ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar from Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar." I said: Its isnād is ṣaḥīḥ, its men are trustworthy, the men of the two Shaykhs, and it is according to the conditions of Muslim; because he narrated from Ḥafṣ from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar. The ḥadīth has another route indicated by al-Tirmidhī following his previous statement, he said: "ʿImrān ibn Ḥudayr narrated this ḥadīth from Abū al-Barzī from Ibn ʿUmar, and Abū al-Barzī's name is Yazīd ibn ʿUṭārid." I said: This was connected by Ibn Abī Shaybah (4167), and also by al-Dārimī, as well as al-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Dūlābī in "al-Kuná" (1/127), and al-Bayhaqī in "al-Sunan" (7/283) through the route of al-Ṭayālisī—and this is in "Musnad" (258/1094)—, and also by Aḥmad (2/12) through routes from him. I said: Its men are trustworthy, the men of Muslim; except for Yazīd ibn ʿUṭārid, Ibn Abī Ḥātim said from his father (4/2/281-282): "I do not know anyone who narrated from him except ʿImrān ibn Ḥudayr, and he is not someone whose ḥadīth is used as proof." And I say: Yes, but that does not prevent using him for corroboration; for he is a tābiʿī and Ibn Ḥibbān considered him trustworthy (5/547), and therefore Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir decisively stated in his commentary on