and a man in his house, who does not backbite a Muslim, nor does he bring upon them anger or vengeance, and if he dies; it is a guarantee from Allāh). It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ" (4/491/3834) through the chain of al-Ḥakam ibn Bashīr ibn Sulaymān from ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Mulāʾī from ʿĪsá ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān from al-Zuhrī from ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr from ʿĀʾishah, as a marfūʿ narration. And he said: "No one narrated it from ʿĪsá ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylá (sic) except ʿAmr ibn Qays, and al-Ḥakam ibn Bashīr ibn Sulaymān was unique in narrating it." I say: This al-Ḥakam is truthful. And his teacher ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Mulāʾī is trustworthy and precise, among the men of Muslim. And his teacher ʿĪsá ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān: he is the son of Furwah—and it is said: the son of Sabrah—al-Anṣārī, very weak, al-Bukhārī said: "His ḥadīth is rejected." And al-Nasāʾī said: "His ḥadīth is abandoned." And Ibn Ḥibbān said in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" (2/120): "He was among those who narrated rejected narrations from well-known narrators, he narrated from al-Zuhrī what was not from his ḥadīth without concealing it, so he deserved to be abandoned." I say: And he is the one mentioned in his biography that he narrated from al-Zuhrī, and from him ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Mulāʾī. So what came in the follow-up by al-Ṭabarānī that he is (ibn Abī Laylá)! is an obvious error, perhaps it is..