"and the men of its isnād are trustworthy." I said: So he did not authenticate it. Al-Ḥāfiẓ clarified this in "Takhrīj al-Adhkār," saying—as in "Sharḥ Ibn ʿAllān" (3/266)—"Ibn Mājah alone narrated it, and its men are the men of 'al-Ṣaḥīḥ'; except that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sābiṭ frequently narrates mursal reports, and he is a trustworthy tābiʿī. Ibn al-Mubārak also included it in 'Kitāb al-Jihād' as a mursal report, saying: from Ibn Sābiṭ: that ʿĀʾishah heard Sālim... and Ibn al-Mubārak is more precise than al-Walīd, who narrated the ḥadīth as connected; but there is another chain for the ḥadīth mentioned without the story, and if it is combined with the isnād [that] precedes it, it strengthens it, and it is known that it has a basis." I said: His statement, "and Ibn al-Mubārak is more precise than al-Walīd," is undoubtedly true, but it suggests (1) that al-Walīd was alone in narrating it, which is not the case; as I indicated in my previous statement: "from two paths from Ḥanẓalah." By the first, I mean: the path of the group from (al-Walīd), and by the other: the path of Aḥmad, who said: "Ibn Numayr narrated to us, saying: Ḥanẓalah narrated to us from Ibn Sābiṭ from ʿĀʾishah..." It was narrated among a collection of ḥadīths by Ibn Numayr—whose name is also ʿAbd Allāh—and he is trustworthy among the men of the two Shaykhs. This is a strong corroboration from him for al-Walīd ibn Muslim, so the issue is a suspicion of disconnection, not contradiction, and Allāh knows best. Then I saw that al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned this narration of Aḥmad in "al-Iṣābah," yet he set up the disagreement between Ibn al-Mubārak and al-Walīd only, saying: "and Ibn al-Mubārak is more reliable than al-Walīd"!