and al-Bayhaqī said after him: "al-Yasaʿ ibn Ṭalḥah was deemed weak, and the ḥadīth is disconnected; Mujāhid did not meet Abū Dharr, and Allāh knows best." I said: The denial of his meeting has been previously stated by more than one of the ḥadīth scholars. It is mentioned in "Naṣb al-Rāyah" by al-Zaylaʿī (1/254) following the aforementioned denial: "The Shaykh (meaning: Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd) said in 'al-Imām': And this ḥadīth of Abū Dharr is flawed for four reasons: the first is the disconnection between Mujāhid and Abū Dharr... (then he mentioned al-Bayhaqī's statement). The second is the difference in its isnād; it was narrated by Saʿīd ibn Sālim from Ibn al-Muʾammal from Ḥumayd, the client of ʿAfrāʾ, from Mujāhid from Abū Dharr, without mentioning Qays ibn Saʿd. Ibn ʿAdī also recorded it in "al-Kāmil" in this manner. Al-Bayhaqī said: "And likewise it was narrated by ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad al-Shāmī from Ibn al-Muʾammal from Ḥumayd al-Aʿraj from Mujāhid." The third is the weakness of Ibn al-Muʾammal, as al-Nasāʾī and Ibn Maʿīn said: "Weak." Aḥmad said: "His ḥadīths are objectionable." Ibn ʿAdī said: "Most of his ḥadīths are evidently weak." The fourth is the weakness of Ḥumayd, the client of ʿAfrāʾ, as al-Bayhaqī said: "He is not strong." Abū ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: "He is weak." End!" I said: These flaws, in my view, are very weak; except for the first and third, which require further examination, and the weakest of them is the fourth; for this Ḥumayd—who is Ibn Qays al-Aʿraj al-Makkī al-Qārī—