and Abū ʿAlī, this is the Anṣārī, and he is very weak, but he did not narrate it alone, for it was also recorded by Tamām (no. 4) through another chain from Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd al-Ṭabarī, who narrated to us from Hudbah ibn Khālid, and Hudbah and those above him are trustworthy except for al-Ḥajjāj, who is the well-known tyrant. As for the ḥadīth of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd, it was recorded by Ibn Mājah (no. 443): Suwayd ibn Saʿīd narrated to us, narrated by Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zāʾidah, from Shuʿbah, from Ḥabīb ibn Zayd, from ʿAbbād ibn Tamīm, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd as a marfūʿ ḥadīth. Al-Zaylaʿī said (1/19): "This is the most authentic isnād in the chapter due to its continuity and the trustworthiness of its men, for Ibn Abī Zāʾidah, Shuʿbah, and ʿAbbād were relied upon by the two Shaykhs, and Ḥabīb was mentioned by Ibn Ḥibbān in 'al-Thiqāt' among the followers of the followers, and Suwayd ibn Saʿīd was relied upon by Muslim." Al-Ḥāfiẓ critiqued this in 'al-Dirāyah' (p. 7) by noting that this Suwayd had become confused. And he said in 'al-Taqrīb': "He is truthful in himself, but he became blind, so he began to accept what was not from his ḥadīth, and Ibn Maʿīn severely criticized him." For this reason, al-Būṣīrī said in 'al-Zawāʾid' (p. 33/2): "This isnād is ḥasan if Suwayd ibn Saʿīd remembered it." I say: But that does not prevent it from being ḥasan li-ghayrih as long as all the men are trustworthy and none of them is accused. And if we add to it the authentic chain of Ibn ʿAbbās and his other chain which was authenticated by Ibn al-Qaṭṭān, Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Zaylaʿī, and others, then there is no doubt about the establishment and authenticity of the ḥadīth, and if we add to that the other chains from other Companions, it gains strength, and indeed it rises to the level of mutawātir according to some scholars