and al-Aṣbahānī in "al-Targhīb" (2/579/1382 - Fidā edition). Al-Bayhaqī said (2/140/1): "And ʿAbd Allāh is weak." I say: Rather, he is abandoned, and therefore, the statement of al-Mundhirī in "al-Targhīb" (3/296): "Narrated by al-Bazzār with two isnāds, one of which is strong!" is not accepted! Similarly, the statement of al-Haythamī (8/92): "Narrated by al-Bazzār with two isnāds, and the men of one of them are the men of 'al-Ṣaḥīḥ', except for Muḥammad ibn Abī Nuʿaym, who is reliable, but there is weakness in him!" They mean the isnād of al-Nuʿmān ibn Rāshid, and they have closed their eyes to the criticism in it which I pointed out earlier. The second: from ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār from Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr from Abū Salamah from Abū Hurayrah with it. Narrated by al-Bayhaqī (2/430/1) through two routes from him, and he weakened them. The third: from Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan: Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd narrated to us: Ibn Lahīʿah narrated to us from Abū al-Aswad from Yaḥyá ibn al-Naḍr from him. I say: This isnād is good; except that I did not find a biography for this Jaʿfar. The rest of its narrators are reliable, and Qutaybah is among those who heard from Ibn Lahīʿah before his books were burned. Then I realized that this Jaʿfar is Abū Bakr al-Firyābī, who is a trustworthy, reliable, and trustworthy ḥāfiẓ, mentioned in "Tārīkh Baghdād" (7/199-203) and "Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ", so the ḥadīth is authentic and all praise is due to Allāh