237), he said after mentioning that al-Tirmidhī considered it good and al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī authenticated the ḥadīth: "It has a supporting narration from Ibn ʿUmar in al-Muḥāmalī's 'al-Amālī' (69/2), and its chain is good for supporting evidence." This is something the Shaykh benefited from my forthcoming analysis of the ḥadīth, as is evident to readers with the slightest reflection. It is well-known about him among all who work under his supervision, yet there is neither praise nor thanks! This is not the main point, but rather for readers to consider whether the man was truthful in attributing agreement to the Shaykh, or if this is a retraction from him for one reason or another?! The same applies to the following ḥadīth as you will see! 2- (160- ... does not bow to his friend ...). I say: I mentioned there that its chain is good for corroboration, and I analyzed it from four routes from Anas (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu), two of which are suitable for citation without any doubt or hesitation, the third is acceptable, and the fourth is not to be cited; as I clarified there. At least for the first two routes, al-Tirmidhī considered it good, al-Ḥāfiẓ agreed, and Ibn Taymiyyah used it as evidence; as will be mentioned. I add here: al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Baghawī also strengthened it in 'Sharḥ al-Sunnah' (12/292), ʿAllāmah ʿAlī al-Qārī declared its authenticity in 'Sharḥ al-Mishkāt' (4/576), and al-Nawawī considered it good in 'al-Riyāḍ' following al-Tirmidhī