indexes of "al-Majmaʿ") (vol. 3, p. 305). thus, the statement of the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Talkhīṣ" (vol. 2, p. 241): "Its isnād is weak!" is an unwarranted leniency. Zayd al-ʿAmī is weak, and although he was followed up, the chain to him is feeble because it is narrated by ʿUlailah ibn Badr: narrated to us by Sayyār ibn Salāmah from Abū al-ʿĀliyah from Ibn ʿAbbās ... It was also recorded by al-Ṭabarānī (vol. 12, p. 159, no. 12755). ʿUlailah is a nickname, and his name is al-Rabīʿ, and he is also abandoned, and neither al-Haythamī nor the ḥāfiẓ mentioned this route. Secondly: the ḥadīth of Abū Barzah al-Aslamī "al-Haythamī said: "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" and "al-Awsaṭ", and its men are trustworthy." and the ḥāfiẓ said after attributing it to al-Ṭabarānī: "and its isnād is good." I have reviewed the isnād of "al-Awsaṭ" (vol. 6, p. 316, no. 5672 -ṭ) and found it to be a weak isnād. It was recorded through the route of Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd al-ʿAṭṭār from Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Saʿīd ibn Jumhān from him, and he said: "No one narrated it from Ḥammād except Yaḥyá al-ʿAṭṭār al-Ḥimṣī." and this Yaḥyá; al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mīzān": "He was a ḥadīth scholar, and he traveled to Egypt, Iraq, and the two holy cities... Ibn Muṣaffá said: trustworthy. Ibn Maʿīn said: weak. Abū Dāwūd said: acceptable in ḥadīth. Ibn Khuzaymah said: not relied upon. Ibn ʿAdī said: clearly weak."