and through his route: al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar in "al-Taʿlīq" (2/163), Aḥmad (2/243), and Ibn ʿAsākir in "Tārīkh" (10/76). Its isnād is authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs. I said, and these three differed in elevating the ḥadīth from Abū Hurayrah: three others: 1- al-Aʿraj: It was narrated by Aḥmad in "al-Musnad" (2/243), and through his route: Ibn ʿAsākir (10/74) from Sufyān from Abū al-Zinād from him as mawqūf. Its isnād is authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs. 2- Abū Zurʿah: It was narrated by Abū Zurʿah in "Tārīkh Dimashq" (10/77) through the route of al-Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Maʿshar from Muḥammad ibn Rabīʿah from Yaḥyá ibn Ayyūb from him with it. And Ibn Abī Maʿshar was not reliable; as mentioned in "al-Mughnī" (1/155) by al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī. 3- Abū Yūnus, the freed slave of Abū Hurayrah: It was narrated by Ibn ʿAsākir in "Tārīkh Dimashq" (10/77) through the route of Qutaybah from Ibn Lahīʿah from him with it. Abū Yūnus's name is: Sulaym ibn Jubayr, and he is trustworthy. The narration of Qutaybah from Ibn Lahīʿah is reliable, Allāh willing; as I have clarified in sections of this "series." I said: I do not see this mawqūf as a defect; for two reasons: