"and their narrators are trustworthy." I say: Yes, but there are three defects: the first is the ʿanʿanah of al-Muṭṭalib ibn Ḥanṭab, as he frequently practices tadlīs. The second is the disagreement regarding the companionship of (Quhayd ibn Muṭarrif). When Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him among the Companions in his book "al-Thiqāt," he said (3/348): "It is said that he had companionship." Others have said similarly, and for this reason, Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him again among "the trustworthy followers" (5/326). Al-Ḥāfiẓ did not mention in "al-Iṣābah" or elsewhere anything that indicates his companionship except this ḥadīth, and he reported the disagreement about it, explaining it in "al-Tahdhīb" as will be mentioned. None of this indicates his companionship, and for this reason, al-Bukhārī considered it defective due to its mursal nature as previously mentioned, indicating a preference for the view that he was not a Companion. The third is that al-Muṭṭalib ibn Ḥanṭab was contradicted in his isnād by his servant ʿAmr ibn Abī ʿAmr, who said: from Fuhaid ibn Muṭarrif from Abū Hurayrah... thus adding (Abū Hurayrah) to the chain and connecting it. Al-Bukhārī also narrated it from his teacher Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Uways: Ibn Wahb narrated to me from Yaḥyá ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sālim from ʿAmr, the servant of al-Muṭṭalib. I say: This isnād is good; its narrators are trustworthy and are the narrators of Muslim, except for (Fuhaid), who is trustworthy as previously mentioned. There is some criticism of Ismāʿīl that does not harm, especially since he has been corroborated, as it was also narrated by al-Layth ibn Saʿd from