for this reason, the ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "weak." I said: For this reason, improving its isnād is unlikely, but it can be said that it is suitable for supporting evidence, or that his ḥadīth is ḥasan due to other factors, and Allāh knows best. I do not think that its isnād in "al-Kabīr al-Ṭabarānī" is except from this aspect. I say this because the section that includes the musnad of (Abū Barzah), whose name is (Naḍlah), has not been printed yet. Thirdly: The ḥadīth of ʿAlī has been previously referenced, and it is known to have a ḥasan isnād from the narration of al-Dāraquṭnī, and it is further strengthened by the one before it and the one after it. Fourthly: The ḥadīth of Anas ibn Mālik; it is narrated by Muḥammad ibn Thābit from his father from him. It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Ṣaghīr," and I have referenced it in "al-Rawḍ al-Naḍīr" (number 78), so I will not elaborate on it. Muḥammad ibn Thābit is weak, as stated by al-Haythamī and al-ʿAsqalānī. Fifthly: The ḥadīth of Abū Masʿūd ʿUqbah ibn ʿAmr, and this was mentioned by the ḥāfiẓ without his teacher al-Haythamī in the narration of al-Ṭabarānī, who said: "ḥasan isnād!" Thus he said! There is a consideration in this; for it is in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" by al-Ṭabarānī (17/242/674) from the route of ʿAlī ibn al-Jaʿd: narrated to us by ʿAbd al-Malik ibn al-Ḥusayn from ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿUmayr from Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Barrād from ʿUqbah ibn ʿAmr. I said: If ʿAbd al-Malik ibn al-Ḥusayn is Abū Mālik al-Nakhaʿī al-Wāsiṭī; then he is abandoned;