and he did not mention any criticism or endorsement about him. A second route from Ibn ʿUmar: It was recorded by al-Sahmī (254-255) through the route of Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Rūmī, who narrated to us from al-Furāt ibn al-Sāʾib, who narrated from Maymūn ibn Mihrān, from him in a marfūʿ manner in its entirety. This isnād is very weak; al-Furāt, according to al-Dāraquṭnī and others, is "abandoned." Al-Bukhārī said: "His ḥadīth is rejected." Aḥmad said: "He is close to Muḥammad ibn Ziyād al-Ṭaḥḥān in Maymūn, accused of what that one is accused of." Ibn ʿAdī said (314/2): "Most of his ḥadīth, especially those from Maymūn ibn Mihrān, are rejected." Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Rūmī is lenient in ḥadīth, as mentioned in "al-Taqrīb." The ḥadīth was mentioned by al-Suyūṭī in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" from the narration of al-Ṭabarānī from Ibn Masʿūd, and Ibn ʿAdī from him and from Thawbān, and Ibn ʿAdī from ʿUmar. Al-Munāwī said in his explanation: "Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī said: Its isnād is weak, and al-Haythamī said: It contains Yazīd ibn Rabīʿah, who is weak. Ibn Rajab said, it is narrated from various routes, all of which have issues. This clarifies the author's symbol for its goodness following Ibn Ṣarṣarī, and perhaps it was supported." I said: You have known that all its routes, except the first, are very weak, so the ḥadīth is not strengthened by them as established in the science of ḥadīth principles. And Allāh knows best. Furthermore, al-Suyūṭī attributed it to Ibn ʿAdī from ʿUmar, but I did not see it from him about ʿUmar, rather from his son