(1) *Hasan* (acceptable): Recorded by Ahmad (21964, 21965, 21966, 21967, 21969) and al-Dārimī (1451), both through Makhūl, from Kathīr ibn Murra, from Qays al-Judhāmī, from Nu‘aym ibn Hammār. Ahmad also recorded it (21963, 21968) through Mu‘āwiya, from Abū al-Zāhiriyya, from Kathīr, from Nu‘aym. Mu‘āwiya is a truthful transmitter who sometimes errs, and Muslim narrated from him. Ahmad also recorded it (17339) through Qatāda, from Nu‘aym, from ‘Uqba ibn ‘Āmir. This chain is disconnected between Qatāda and Nu‘aym; moreover, it is a report attributed to ‘Uqba ibn ‘Āmir. (2) *Da‘īf* (weak): Recorded by Ahmad (26934, 27002) through Safwān ibn ‘Amr al-Saksakī, who said: “Shurayh ibn ‘Ubayd al-Hadramī and another person narrated to me from Abū al-Dardā’.” This chain is weak: Shurayh did not meet Abū al-Dardā’, while the other narrator is unknown. Al-Hāfiz Ibn Hajar stated in *Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb* (4:329): “Ibn Abī Hātim reported in *al-Marāsīl*, citing his father: ‘He did not meet Abū Umāma, al-Miqdām, or al-Hārith ibn al-Hārith, and his narration from Abū Mālik al-Ash‘arī is *mursal* (disconnected).’ [End quote.] If he did not meet Abū Umāma, whose death occurred later, then it follows all the more that he did not meet Abū al-Dardā’. I find it most surprising that the author categorically stated that he had not met those named here, yet did not say the same concerning al-Miqdād, who died before Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās; nor concerning Abū al-Dardā’, Abū Mālik al-Ash‘arī, and several others whom he lists among Shurayh’s sources without qualification. Allah is the One who grants success.” [End quote.]