balanced in strength and authenticity, with none being preferable over the others. This requires him—if he were fair—to present those paths and discuss each one individually. Whatever is weak among them should be discarded, and whatever is authentic should be reconciled. Otherwise, it is said to be disordered. So, did he exert any effort, and I do not say: "exert all effort" to be truthful to the title of his message?! Unfortunately, none of that happened; it is merely gathering and claiming, which even the enemies of the sunnah can easily do. How apt is the saying: "Claims, unless you establish evidence for them... their proponents are mere claimants." Given this situation, it was incumbent upon him to be content with the statement of Abū Nuʿaym, which he quoted (p. 48): "It was narrated by the reliable narrators from al-Ḥasan ibn al-Rabīʿ, and they did not go beyond Mujāhid in it." This strongly indicates that they differed regarding al-Ḥasan ibn al-Rabīʿ. Some narrated it from Mujāhid from Anas, making it musnad, but the reliable narrators did not go beyond Mujāhid, which is the preserved version as previously mentioned. In summary: this authentic mursal and the musnad of Zāfir from Muḥammad ibn ʿUyainah from Abū Ḥāzim from Sahl, when combined, make the ḥadīth strong. If the narration of Muḥammad ibn Kathīr from Sufyān al-Thawrī from Abū Ḥāzim is added to them, even if it does not increase its strength, it does not harm it, as is evident. 2- As for his lack of fairness with the narrators as well, this is evident from what I mentioned earlier. He equated the liars with the truthful ones in not using them as evidence, which is contrary to what the scholars hold regarding the ḥadīth that is ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ for other reasons, so there is no need to repeat