another perspective—besides the majority and the most reliable—is to say: these individuals have an addition, and the addition of a trustworthy person is accepted. The following response confirms this. As for the response to the third aspect; it is with al-Bayhaqī himself; for after he presented the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muʾammal and noted its weakness, he commented on it: "However, Ibrāhīm ibn Ṭahmān has corroborated him in this from Ḥumayd, and he established its isnād." Then he presented it from him: Ḥumayd, the client of ʿAfrāʾ, narrated to us from Qays ibn Saʿd from Mujāhid who said: Abū Dharr came to us, took hold of the door ring, and then said: I heard the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) with these two ears of mine... and he mentioned the ḥadīth of the translation with the addition. Then he criticized it for the weakness of (Ḥumayd)—and the response to this has been mentioned before—and for the disconnection, and by saying: "Mujāhid does not have confirmed hearing from Abū Dharr, and his statement: 'He came to us' means: he came to our land. And Allāh knows best!" Mujāhid explicitly stated: "Abū Dharr came to us"; this is an explicit declaration from him that he met and heard from him in Mecca, and Mujāhid is known to be from Mecca, and the isnād to him is authentic. The interpretation mentioned by al-Bayhaqī is only valid to resort to if it is established with an authentic isnād as well and does not accept interpretation, as if it were established that he was born after the death of Abū Dharr, or was young, or similar matters that can be relied upon after their establishment; in this case, the mentioned interpretation can be considered. And Allāh knows best. Nevertheless, it is agreed upon by scholars that the mursal reports of Mujāhid are better than the mursal reports of other followers like ʿAṭāʾ and others. If his hearing of the ḥadīth from Abū Dharr is not established, it is a sound mursal that can be strengthened with some corroborating evidence: