I said: This isnād can be used as supporting evidence; for Zubān ibn Fāʾid is not severely weak. Al-Dhahabī said in "al-Kāshif": "Virtuous, good, weak." He also said in "al-Mughnī": "Weakened, and Abū Ḥātim said: His ḥadīth is sound." Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "Weak in ḥadīth despite his righteousness and devotion." So his statement at the end of the biography of Umm al-Dardāʾ—whose name is Khayrah—in "al-Iṣābah," after attributing it only to al-Ṭabarānī: "And its isnād is very weak!" is refuted by his statement in "al-Taqrīb," and by the first path, which is a strong witness for it. It seems that al-Ḥāfiẓ did not recall it, otherwise he would have sufficed with it instead of the other which he greatly weakened. This is befitting of his memory and knowledge, but only Allāh encompasses all knowledge! More surprising than that is the confusion and mix-up by his student Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Nājī, contrary to his usual practice and thoroughness; for he said, following the statement of al-Mundhirī (Q 37/1): "If the mention of (the isnāds) refers to al-Ṭabarānī and not Aḥmad, otherwise it is not accepted, and Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythamī attributed it to both of them in his book 'Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid'; but he did not mention (the isnāds), and said: 'Their narrators are trustworthy,' and our Shaykh al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar attributed it in his work on the names of the Companions in the biography of (Umm al-Dardāʾ al-Kubrā) to Abū Yaʿlá and al-Ṭabarānī, and mentioned..