"so the ḥadīth is considered to have a good isnād; because its narrators are unknown in terms of their reliability, they have not been criticized, and their ḥadīth has a strong supporting witness." And he said in "al-ʿUshāriyyāt" (the first ḥadīth) from it (folio 3/b): "And it was narrated by the ḥāfiẓ Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-Maqdisī in his book 'al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtārah mimma laysa fī wāḥid min al-ṣaḥīḥayn' from two paths to al-Ṭabarānī." And he said after it: "Bukhārī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim did not mention Zuhayr in their books, nor did they mention Ziyād ibn Ṭāriq, and Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq narrated from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather a similar story and poetry. And al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in full from his path. I said: And I do not know of any precedent for ḥāfiẓ Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn in his authentication; but his narrators were not criticized, and each of them explicitly stated hearing from his shaykh, so it is a unique and strange narration, with no reason for its weakening!" And I say: As for the side of Ibn Rumāḥis, yes; there is no reason for its weakening. But regarding Ziyād ibn Ṭāriq; the reason is to weaken it because he is unknown; as it was previously mentioned from the ḥāfiẓ about al-Bāwardī that he is unknown, and he agreed with him on it, and he did the same in his biography in "al-Lisān," as al-Dhahabī agreed with his statement about him: "obscure, not known." So how can the isnād of his ḥadīth be considered good?! Especially since al-Dhahabī criticized it with a significant defect as it appeared to him; but the ḥāfiẓ refuted that and was correct, as the defect is the unknown status of Ziyād. Yes; it can be said: It is good due to other factors, for the supporting witness that Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī referred to from the narration of Ibn Isḥāq with al-Ṭabarānī, as he extracted it—following the ḥadīth of the biography