as for precision, al-Nasāʾī declared it weak, and others have spoken about it, but Ibn ʿAdī said: he is the most reliable of people regarding al-Layth. This statement was relied upon by the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Taqrīb," where he said: "Trustworthy in al-Layth." And he said about Qutaybah: "Trustworthy and reliable." When the difference between the two men is clarified, one feels more assured by the narration of Qutaybah, whose trustworthiness and precision are agreed upon, than by the narration of Yaḥyá ibn Bukayr, about whom there is disagreement, even though Ibn ʿAdī's statement, in its generality, suggests preferring his narration from al-Layth specifically over others' narrations from him. Nevertheless, there is doubt about the authenticity of this context from Yaḥyá, because the narrator from him, ʿUbayd ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Sharīk, is also subject to discussion. Here is what is mentioned about his biography according to al-Khaṭīb in "Tārīkh Baghdād" (11/99): "al-Dāraquṭnī said: Truthful. Abū Muzāḥim Mūsá ibn ʿUbayd Allāh said: He was one of the trustworthy, and I did not write anything from him during his change. Ibn al-Manādī (meaning in his history) said: Most people narrated from him, then he was afflicted and changed in his last days, yet he remained truthful. al-Khaṭīb said: I did not write anything from him." From the above, it is concluded that the context of Aḥmad from al-Layth from al-Jallāḥ Abū Kathīr from al-Mughīrah ibn Abī Burdah from Abū Hurayrah is the correct one from al-Layth and al-Jallāḥ. When this is clarified, the chain is authentic; all its men are trustworthy, the men of Muslim, except for al-Mughīrah, who is trustworthy as al-Nasāʾī said, and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (1/218-219) and a group narrated from him. For complete benefit, it is appropriate to now present the wording of this isnād as it is more complete, Abū Hurayrah said