both of them were cited as authorities in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs," yet I believe—and Allāh knows best—that it is not necessary to attribute the error to ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz; rather, Muḥammad ibn ʿAjlān is more deserving of it, as previously indicated by the differences regarding him. It is possible that he sometimes transmitted it as a mursal from this al-Iskandarānī, and at other times attributed it to Saʿīd al-Maqburī from his father from Abū Hurayrah. It has also been narrated through another chain from Abū Hurayrah, but it is weak and not to be rejoiced over, as it comes through the chain of Ṣilah ibn Sulaymān al-ʿAṭṭār: "Ashʿath narrated to us from Ibn Sīrīn from Abū Hurayrah with it." Al-Khaṭīb recorded it in "al-Tārīkh" (9/336) in the biography of this Ṣilah, and said: "Abū Ḥātim said: He is abandoned in ḥadīth; his narrations from Ashʿath are objectionable." Al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mughnī": "They abandoned him." A similar narration was reported by ʿUmar ibn Rāshid from Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr from Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf from Abū al-Dardāʾ in a summarized form. Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr," and al-Mundhirī said (2/248): "With two isnāds; the better of them includes ʿUmar ibn Rāshid, and the rest of its narrators are cited as authorities in 'the Ṣaḥīḥ,' and there is no harm in this isnād for supporting evidence." A similar account is found in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (10/90); however, it states regarding ʿUmar ibn Rāshid: "He was deemed reliable despite his weakness, and the rest of the men are narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ." I said: Al-Dhahabī also stated in "al-Mughnī": "They weakened him."