ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAwḍ al-Amalūkī narrated to us from Abū Amīn al-Ḥimyarī from al-Qāsim ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān from Abū al-Dardāʾ in a marfūʿ form. I said: This isnād is weak; even though Baqiyyah has explicitly stated the narration from ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAwḍ al-Amalūkī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim has documented him, saying: (2/2/133): "He narrated from Abū Amīn al-Ḥimyarī, the companion of Abū al-Dardāʾ (?), and Baqiyyah ibn al-Walīd narrated from him, and ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī, known as (Sulaym al-Ḥimṣī), narrated from his grandfather about him." He did not mention any criticism or endorsement about him; it seems as if he is one of the unknown shaykhs of Baqiyyah. And his statement about him: "the companion of Abū al-Dardāʾ"! It is likely a slip of the pen; for between him and Abū al-Dardāʾ is al-Qāsim ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān—who is from Damascus. This Abū Amīn has an entry in "Taʿjīl al-Manfaʿah" (465/1226); from which it is understood that he is of unknown status. In summary; it is an obscure isnād, and al-Munāwī summarized the discussion about it in "Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ" (1/288), saying: "In it is Baqiyyah, and his condition is well-known, but it has supporting evidence, and some mentioned that the author indicated its goodness, but I did not see it in his handwriting." I said: It is noticeable that the symbol for the ḥadīth in the "Jāmiʿ" copy on which al-Munāwī's commentary is based is for weakness, which suggests to the reader that the commentary is not on the copy of "al-Jāmiʿ" that al-Munāwī owned. Furthermore, some of the supporting evidence that al-Munāwī referred to is authentic from Abū Hurayrah, both mawqūf and marfūʿ, and its documentation has been previously mentioned in the first volume of this "series" under number (186).