his confusions, and it was narrated by al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. This narration from him and the narration of Yūnus ibn ʿUbayd from him indicate that the ḥadīth has an origin from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. However, is it from his narration from ʿAtī from Abū, or from his narration from al-Ḍaḥḥāk? We cannot prefer one over the other because the first includes Ibn Jidʿān, and the other includes Mūsá ibn Masʿūd, both of whom are weak, although Ibn Masʿūd is in a better state than Ibn Jidʿān. It is possible that his narration is more likely, and I confirmed this when I found someone who corroborated him, as previously indicated. Moreover, al-Ḥasan has used the term ʿanʿanah in both narrations from him, so it is possible that his teacher in both is the same, and thus the two narrations return to being from one path. On this basis, the heart is not at ease, nor is the soul reassured to consider this witness, because its origin and the origin of what is being witnessed for return to one path, so the ḥadīth is not strengthened by it, as it is like strengthening the weak with itself! Yes, there is another witness for the ḥadīth from Salmān who said: "A group came to the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) and said: 'Do you have food?' They said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Do you have drink?' They said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Do you describe it?' They said: 'Yes.' He said: 'And do you expose it?' They said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Then their return is like the return of the world; one of you stands behind his house and holds his nose from its stench.'" Al-Haythamī said (10/288): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and its men are the men of the authentic." I said: If its isnād is from a path other than that of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, as I hope, then it is suitable as a witness for the ḥadīth and is strengthened by it. And Allāh knows best. It was also narrated by Ibn Abī al-Dunyā from the path of Sufyān from ʿĀṣim from Abū ʿUthmān who said: A man came... the ḥadīth is similar to the narration of Salmān