It was recorded by al-Bayhaqī in "al-Asmāʾ wa-al-Ṣifāt" (p. 290). I said: This is a very weak chain. This Ibrāhīm is abandoned as al-Dhahabī said, and Abū Ḥātim declared him a liar. He was followed by al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad al-Thaqafī, but he is unknown as mentioned in "al-Taqrīb". It was recorded by Ibn Mardawayh as in Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (2/13 - al-Manār edition) through the route of Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Sarī (original: al-Yusrī) al-ʿAsqalānī who informed us from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Tamīmī from al-Qāsim with it. Both al-ʿAsqalānī and al-Tamīmī are weak. The ḥadīth has two other routes from Abū Dharr: the first from Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd al-Saʿdī al-Baṣrī who said: ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Jurayj narrated to us from ʿAṭāʾ from ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmar al-Laythī from him with it. It was recorded by al-Bayhaqī who said, "Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd al-Saʿdī was unique in narrating it, and it has a corroborating narration with a more authentic chain." I said: Then he presented it through the previously mentioned route of al-Ghassānī, and I do not see it as more authentic than this; rather, it is weaker, because Ibrāhīm is accused as mentioned before, whereas this one does not have anyone explicitly accused, and its narrators are trustworthy except for this al-Saʿdī, about whom al-ʿUqaylī said: "He is not followed in his ḥadīth." He means this. Ibn Ḥibbān said: He narrates inversions and fabrications, and it is not permissible to use him as evidence when he is alone. The second: from Ibn Zayd who said: My father narrated to me that Abū Dharr said and mentioned it