as will be discussed in the report of Ibn ʿAbbās.

The second route: ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥuṣayn → Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAllāthah → ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jazarī → Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib → from him.
Ibn Mājah recorded it (no. 445), as did al-Dāraquṭnī (p. 38), who remarked, “ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥuṣayn and Ibn ʿAllāthah are both weak.” I add: the first of the two is the weaker.

The third route: al-Bakhtari ibn ʿUbayd → his father → from him.
Al-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it and said, “Al-Bakhtari ibn ʿUbayd is weak and his father is unknown.”

The fourth route: ʿAlī ibn ʿĀṣim → Ibn Jurayj → Sulaymān ibn Mūsā → Abū Hurayrah.
Al-Dāraquṭnī brought it (37), and Ibn al-Jawzī cited it in al-Taḥqīq (1/29/1). Al-Dāraquṭnī commented, “ʿAlī ibn ʿĀṣim was mistaken when he said, ‘from Abū Hurayrah, from the Prophet ﷺ.’ The version before it, from Ibn Jurayj, is sounder.” I say: that means the chain should stop with Sulaymān ibn Mūsā as a mursal report, and this will be mentioned on p. 51.

Ibn al-Jawzī replied, in summary, that an additional link supplied by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable—meaning that ʿAlī ibn ʿĀṣim’s insertion of Abū Hurayrah ought to be accepted. Yet this argument does not hold here, for Ibn ʿĀṣim, though truthful, makes errors and persists in them.

3 – As for Ibn ʿUmar, there are also several routes from him:
The first: al-Mukhlis said in al-Fawāʾid al-Muntaqā (“the second of the sixth collection,” f.