It was recorded by al-Bazzār in his "Musnad" (p. 156, Zawāʾid Ibn Ḥajar), al-Fākihī in his "Ḥadīth" (1/20/1), and Ibn ʿAdī in "al-Kāmil" (206/1) from Ṭāriq—with the addition by al-Bazzār and al-Fākihī: and ʿAbbād ibn Kathīr—from Abū al-Zinād with it, and al-Bazzār said: "We do not know it from Abū Hurayrah except through this isnād." Thus he said, but it is refuted by what follows. Ibn ʿAdī said: "Ṭāriq ibn ʿAmmār is known for this ḥadīth, and al-Bukhārī said: He is not followed upon it." I said: Thus said Imām al-Bukhārī, and there is a consideration, for Baqiyyah said: Muʿāwiyah ibn Yaḥyá narrated to me from Abū al-Zinād with it. It was recorded by Ibn Shāhīn in "al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb" (297/2), and also by Ibn ʿAdī (335/2), and al-Qaḍāʿī in "Musnad al-Shihāb" (Q 83/2), and Ibn ʿAdī said: "Muʿāwiyah ibn Yaḥyá al-Aṭrābulusī, some of his narrations are not followed upon." I said: And this is a mild weakening, and similarly, the statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful, but has delusions, and it is a mistake to confuse him with the one before him." (Meaning Muʿāwiyah ibn Yaḥyá al-Ṣadafī). For Ibn Maʿīn and Abū Ḥātim and others said: "Al-Aṭrābulusī is stronger than al-Ṣadafī, and al-Dāraqutnī said the opposite." I said: Therefore, he is ḥasan in ḥadīth when followed at least, and Ṭāriq ibn ʿAmmār followed him as mentioned earlier. And al-Mundhirī said about him (3/81): "There is some discussion about him, but he was not abandoned."