and ʿAbdullāh; the first two are well-known trustworthy individuals. If the isnād revolves around either of them, it is authentic. Otherwise, ʿAbdullāh is only known in this ḥadīth as narrated by Abū Yaʿlá in "Musnad al-Kabīr," as mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Nukat al-Ẓirāf" (1/38). He reported it from Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Dawraqī from Mubashshir ibn Ismāʿīl from al-Awzāʿī with this isnād, but he said: "from ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī ibn Kaʿb; that his father informed him." I say: This al-Dawraqī is a trustworthy ḥāfiẓ, but I see that he or his teacher Mubashshir ibn Ismāʿīl erred in this naming, due to three reasons that, upon review, confirm its anomaly: 1- He contradicted ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd ibn Saʿīd, the teacher of al-Nasāʾī, who deemed him reliable by saying: there is no harm in him. He said: Mubashshir narrated to us... and mentioned it without the naming. 2- If we do not say that al-Dawraqī erred—due to his reliability and because ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd ibn Saʿīd is less reliable—then it must be said that the one who erred is this Mubashshir ibn Ismāʿīl, because he contradicted the group, which includes al-Walīd ibn Muslim as cited by Ibn Ḥibbān, Abū al-Shaykh, and al-Baghawī, and Hiql ibn Ziyād as cited by al-Ḥārith and Abū Nuʿaym, and al-Walīd ibn Mazīd as cited by al-Bayhaqī. There is no doubt that the narration of the group is stronger than that of the individual, especially when they sometimes agree, as is the case here. 3- The ḥadīth has also come through another route from Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr with a different isnād from Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, naming his son (Muḥammad). Muʿādh ibn Hāniʾ said: Ḥarb ibn Shadād narrated to us: Yaḥyá narrated to me: al-Ḥaḍramī ibn Lāḥiq al-Tamīmī said: Muḥammad ibn Abī ibn Kaʿb narrated to me, saying: My grandfather had a granary... al-Nasāʾī reported it (961) as follows: "My grandfather had..." This means—as is apparent—