and there are two supporting narrations for the ḥadīth: the first is from the narration of ʿAlī; it is transmitted by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylá from al-Ḥakam and al-Minhāl from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylá from his father from him. It was recorded by al-Nasāʾī (5/108-109), al-Ḥākim (3/37), al-Bayhaqī (5/212-213), and Ibn Abī Shaybah (18729), and he paired (ʿĪsá) with (al-Ḥakam and al-Minhāl), and in al-Ḥākim's version, it is in place of (al-Minhāl), and he said: "The isnād is authentic!" and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylá is known for his poor memory, which is well-known, so he is suitable for supporting evidence, and in sources other than al-Ḥākim, there is mention of (al-ʿUmariyyīn) without (al-Tajbīn). There is another route from ʿAlī; it is transmitted by Nuʿaym ibn Ḥakīm from Abū Maryam al-Ḥanafī from ʿAlī. It was recorded by al-Bazzār (1815) - in an extended form, mentioning ʿUmar and his companions as defeated - and by al-Ḥākim, who did not narrate it in full, but mentioned the defeat and added (al-Tajbīn), and both he and al-Dhahabī said: "The isnād is authentic." I say: This Abū Maryam al-Ḥanafī, his condition is unclear to me, as there is a disagreement about his lineage, whether he is al-Ḥanafī or al-Thaqafī, and about his name, whether it is (Qays) or (Iyās). Qays was deemed reliable by Ibn Ḥibbān and others, and Iyās was not deemed reliable by anyone else. If he is reliable, then the isnād is authentic, otherwise; it is authentic due to the preceding routes and supporting narrations. The other supporting narration is from Salamah ibn ʿAmr ibn al-Akwaʿ; it is transmitted by Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq in "al-Sīrah" (3/385-386- Ibn Hishām), and from his route: al-Ḥākim (3/37)