and among the peculiarities is that this path, despite its authenticity, was overlooked by all those who compiled the ḥadīth from the later scholars, such as al-Zaylaʿī, Ibn Ḥajar, and others who are not specialized in compilation. Even al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī overlooked it and did not include it in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid," even though it meets his criteria! all of this confirms the saying: "How much the predecessors left for the successors." it is a clear indication of the importance of referring to the primary sources when intending to verify a ḥadīth, for one will find in them what makes their research as close as possible to maturity and correctness. And Allāh, the Exalted, is the one who grants success. and if you understand this, do not be deceived by the statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar in "al-Dirāyah" (p. 7) regarding this ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās: "It was reported by al-Dāraqutnī, and there is a difference regarding its continuity and its being sent, and the preponderant view is that it is sent." for he means the first path, and you have known that the correct view is its continuity, and that it is authentic except for the ʿanʿanah of Ibn Jurayj, although you have known the response to that. as for the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah, it was reported by al-Dāraqutnī (p. 37) from Muḥammad ibn al-Azhar al-Jawzjānī, who informed us from al-Faḍl ibn Mūsá al-Sīnānī, from Ibn Jurayj, from Sulaymān ibn Mūsá, from al-Zuhrī, from ʿUrwah from her. and he said: "Thus he said, and the sent version is more authentic." meaning Ibn Jurayj from Sulaymān in a sent form as previously mentioned in the first path from Ibn ʿAbbās, and Muḥammad ibn al-Azhar was said by al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Talkhīṣ" (33): "Aḥmad declared him a liar."