It was recorded by al-Tirmidhī (2/325), Aḥmad (1/171 and 186), al-Ḥākim, Tamām al-Rāzī in "al-Fawāʾid" (218/2), "Musnad al-Muqallīn min al-Umāraʾ wa-al-Salāṭīn" (no. 201), al-Haytham ibn Kulayb in "Musnad" (18/2), Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī in "al-Fitan" (163/1-2), al-Baghawī in "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (4/157), Ibn ʿAsākir (15/189/2), and al-Ḍiyāʾ in "al-Mukhtārah" (1/345) from Ṣāliḥ ibn Kaysān from al-Zuhrī from him with it. Al-Tirmidhī said: "This ḥadīth is gharīb from this perspective." Al-ʿIrāqī said in "Maḥajjat al-Qurb fī Faḍl al-ʿArab" (Q20/1) following it: "I say: Its narrators are trustworthy, and he only found it strange from this perspective—not in general—due to the strangeness of its isnād because it includes five of the Tābiʿīn narrating from one another, the first of them being Ṣāliḥ ibn Kaysān and the last Muḥammad ibn Saʿd." I say: What he mentioned regarding authentication and reasoning does not appear to me, for Yūsuf ibn al-Ḥakam and Muḥammad ibn Abī Sufyān are not well-known, and none but Ibn Ḥibbān authenticated them, and it is well-known among the researchers that he was lenient in authentication. The first is less known than the latter, so I think he only found it strange due to this obscurity. And Allāh knows best. There is a difference in its isnād from al-Zuhrī in several ways: the first is this. The second: It was narrated by Maʿmar from him from ʿUmar ibn Saʿd or another that Saʿd ibn Mālik said: and he mentioned something similar. It was recorded by Aḥmad (1/176) who said: ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us, Maʿmar narrated to us. And likewise, it was narrated by al-Ḍiyāʾ in "al-Mukhtārah" (1/340 and 341). Its narrators are trustworthy except for the doubt that occurred in its isnād. Yes, it was recorded by Ibn ʿAdī (Q92/1) through the route of al-Ḥasan ibn Dāwūd from ʿAbd al-Razzāq with it, except that he said: from ʿUmar ibn Saʿd from his father, and he did not doubt. But this al-Ḥasan is al-Munkadirī, and he is weak, and Ibn ʿAdī said: