al-Baghawī also included it in "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (3/315 - Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Laṭīf's edition) from ʿAbd al-Razzāq with it. This is a sound isnād to the man from Banī Ghifār, and it is apparent that he is Maʿn, the father of Muḥammad, as he is from Banī Ghifār, as explicitly stated in the earlier narration of al-Tirmidhī. This confirms the preference of al-Maqdamī's narration over that of Muḥammad ibn Maʿn. Ibn Ḥibbān also included it (952) through the route of Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān from Maʿmar ibn Rāshid from Saʿīd al-Maqburī from Abū Hurayrah with it. This is how it appeared in "Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān": Maʿmar from Saʿīd. I fear that it might be disconnected, or there might be a missing link in its isnād, as there are two intermediaries between Maʿmar and Saʿīd al-Maqburī, as indicated by Aḥmad's narration from ʿAbd al-Razzāq from him. Then I saw that al-Ḥāfiẓ says in "al-Fatḥ" (9/504): "However, there is a hidden disconnection in this narration that was not apparent to Ibn Ḥibbān, for we have narrated it in 'Musnad Musaddad' from Muʿtamir from Maʿmar from a man from Banī Ghifār from al-Maqburī, and likewise ʿAbd al-Razzāq included it in his 'Jāmiʿ' from Maʿmar. This man is Maʿn ibn Muḥammad al-Ghifārī, as I believe, due to the well-known nature of the ḥadīth through his route." I said: ʿAbd al-Razzāq only narrated it from Maʿmar from al-Zuhrī from the man, so his narration contradicts that of Musaddad from Muʿtamir. There is another route for the ḥadīth from Abū Hurayrah, as Aḥmad said (2/289): ʿUbayd ibn..