the ḥadīth from him, and from the narration of Darāj from Ibn Ḥujayrah, and it is considered good ḥadīth from him; as previously reported under number (3350), and the rest of its narrators are trustworthy, from the narrators of Muslim, except for Aḥmad — who is Ibn ʿAlī al-Abbār — and he is a reliable, precise ḥāfiẓ. He has been followed up, as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr included it in "Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm" (1/122) through the route of Suḥnūn: Ibn Wahb narrated to us with it; except that he did not mention in his isnād: (Abū al-Haytham). Al-Mundhirī overlooked that the ḥadīth is from the narration of Ibn Wahb from Ibn Lahīʿah, so he criticized it in "al-Targhīb" (1/74/6), saying: "al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in 'al-Awsaṭ', and in its isnād is Ibn Lahīʿah!" indicating its weakness. Al-Haythamī explicitly stated this, saying (1/164): "... and in it is Ibn Lahīʿah, and he is weak!" It was also narrated by Abū Khaythamah in "al-ʿIlm" (147/162), Abū al-Qāsim Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam in "Futūḥ Miṣr" (p. 281), and Ibn ʿAdī in "al-Kāmil" (3/115), and also by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr from other routes from Ibn Lahīʿah with it. There is another route narrated by Ibrāhīm from Abū ʿIyāḍ from Abū Hurayrah with it. It was narrated by al-Dārimī in "Sunan" (1/134), Aḥmad in "Musnad" (2/499), and al-Khaṭīb in "Iqtḍāʾ al-ʿIlm al-ʿAmal" (165/12). I say: Its isnād is good in follow-ups, all its men are trustworthy according to al-Dārimī, narrators of Muslim, except for Ibrāhīm — who is Ibn Muslim al-Hijrī —; the ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "weak in raised narrations."