and al-ʿAjlī. Then Ibn Ḥibbān contradicted himself by also mentioning him in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ"! His status was unclear to al-Ḥāfiẓ, so he said: "Acceptable"! As for al-Dhahabī, he said in "al-Kāshif": "Truthful." ʿIkrimah also followed him from Ibn ʿAbbās (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) in the interpretation of the verse of the Hour. It was recorded by al-Ḥākim (2/488) through the route of Simāk ibn Ḥarb from him. He said: "Its isnād is authentic." And al-Dhahabī agreed with him! I said: It is as they said, except that Simāk ibn Ḥarb is inconsistent in his narration from ʿIkrimah specifically, but he has been corroborated. ʿAbd al-Razzāq said in his "Tafsīr" (2/198-199): from Ibn ʿUyaynah from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār from ʿIkrimah who said: Ibn ʿAbbās said: If what Abū Hurayrah says is true, then it is ʿĪsá; because of Allāh's saying: (And indeed, he is a sign for the Hour). I said: And this isnād is authentic. Know that the ḥadīth explicitly indicates that the pronoun in Allāh's saying: (And indeed, he is a sign for the Hour) refers to ʿĪsá (ʿalayhi al-salām), and not to the Quran as some have narrated. Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr said: (Rather, the correct view is that it refers to ʿĪsá (ʿalayhi al-salām); for the context is about him, and the intended meaning is his descent before the Day of Judgment as Allāh said: (And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in him before his death) meaning: before the death of ʿĪsá (ʿalayhi al-salām)