and this isnād consists of narrators who are trustworthy, the narrators of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim]. There are only two known issues preventing me from affirming its authenticity: the first is his [al-Sabīʿī's] confusion, but we are assured of this by al-Thawrī's narration from him, as it is well-known that he narrated from him before the confusion, and his narration from him is in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs." He was also followed by Salām ibn Sulaym as previously mentioned, and they both included his narration in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs" as well. The second issue is his use of ʿanʿanah, as he was accused of tadlīs. However, in my critique, this is not applicable here for the following reasons: Firstly, they mentioned in al-Sabīʿī's biography that he narrated from Ibn ʿUmar, and among those who mentioned this was Ibn Abī Ḥātim from his father. If al-Sabīʿī intended to practice tadlīs, he would have omitted Mujāhid from the chain and narrated directly from Ibn ʿUmar. Had he done so, it would have been described as tadlīs here. Ibn Abī Ḥātim pointed this out in his narration from his father in "al-Marāsīl" (p. 94) where he said: "Abū Isḥāq did not hear from Ibn ʿUmar, he only saw him." Secondly, it was narrated in "al-Jarḥ" with a sound chain from al-Ṭayālisī who said: "A man asked Shuʿbah: Did Abū Isḥāq hear from Mujāhid? He replied: What need did he have for Mujāhid? He was better in ḥadīth than Mujāhid, al-Ḥasan, and Ibn Sīrīn." I say: This is Shuʿbah considering him greater than narrating from Mujāhid, because he held him in higher regard. Nevertheless, when he needed his ḥadīth, he narrated it from him, confirmed it, and did not practice tadlīs. This dispels the suspicion of tadlīs here