weaken it; rather, he indicated its strength by remaining silent about it, as is his method, and by saying: "It has a corroborating narration from Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq." He attributed it elsewhere (p. 55) to al-Ṭabarānī. This corroborating narration has been reported both as marfūʿ and mawqūf: As for the marfūʿ; it has two chains: the first is narrated by al-Sarī ibn Ismāʿīl from Bayān from Qays ibn Abī Ḥāzim from Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq as marfūʿ. It was recorded by al-Bazzār in "al-Baḥr al-Zakhkhār" (1/139/70), and Abū Yaʿlá in "al-Musnad al-Kabīr" (2/4/1 - al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah al-Musnadah), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ" (3/039-391); and he said: "No one narrated it from Bayān except al-Sarī." I say: He is abandoned; as stated by al-Haythamī and al-ʿAsqalānī. The other chain is narrated by ʿUmar ibn Mūsá al-Ḥādī: Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us from al-Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭāh from al-Aʿmash from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Murrah from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sukhrabah from Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq as marfūʿ. It was recorded by Ibn ʿAdī (5/54), and also by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" (9/261/8570), and al-Khaṭīb in "al-Tārīkh" (3/144) - and he found it strange. Al-Ṭabarānī said: "ʿUmar ibn Mūsá al-Ḥādī was unique in narrating it." I say: Ibn ʿAdī said: "Weak, he steals ḥadīth, and contradicts in the isnāds."