...tadlīs, as I have elaborated in my analysis of some ḥadīths. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Buraydah was not accused of tadlīs, and it is verified that he heard from his father, as I have confirmed in the previous ḥadīth (2904) and others. His father died in the year 63, and it is established that he entered with his father upon Muʿāwiyah in "Musnad Aḥmad" (5/347), and Muʿāwiyah died in the year 60, and ʿĀʾishah died in the year 57, so he certainly was her contemporary. Therefore, the two Shaykhs included his narration from some Companions who shared the year of her death or were close to it, like ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mughaffal, and similarly Samurah ibn Jundub, who died in the year 58. Furthermore, they mentioned him among those who narrated from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, who died in the year 32, and they did not consider it disconnected. Perhaps for this reason, as I mentioned, the ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī did not dwell on mentioning the stated opinion, indicating its weakness. Similarly, the ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī in his "Tārīkh" followed this approach, and the ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAlāʾī in "Jāmiʿ al-Taḥṣīl" (252/338) did likewise, mentioning it as mursal only in his narration from ʿUmar, which is very clear; because he was born three days after the caliphate of ʿUmar began. The previous verification and negation of disconnection would be stated even if there were no supporting evidence for the ḥadīth; so how is it when there are two matters: one of them is that some narrators named (ibn Buraydah) as (Sulaymān), as occurred in "al-Nasāʾī" (500/877) and "al-Mustadrak" (1/530) through the route of ʿAlqamah ibn Murthad from him, and he said: "Authentic according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs," and al-Dhahabī agreed, and al-Mundhirī confirmed it. However, the ḥāfiẓ critiqued this in "Takhrīj al-Adhkār"—as Ibn ʿAllān mentioned in "al-Futūḥāt" (4/346)—by saying: "There is a consideration in that; for al-Bayhaqī asserted in the Book of Divorce from "al-Sunan" that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Buraydah did not hear from ʿĀʾishah"!