then I became more certain when I saw it correctly attributed to Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (1558). Another witness is narrated by Sharīk from al-Rukayn ibn al-Rabīʿ from al-Qāsim ibn Ḥassān from Zayd ibn Thābit as a marfūʿ ḥadīth. It was recorded by Aḥmad (5/181-189), Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (1548-1549), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" (4921-4923). This isnād is considered good in terms of supporting evidence and follow-ups. Al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (1/170): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr' and its narrators are trustworthy!" He also said in another place (9/163): "It was narrated by Aḥmad, and its isnād is good!" A long time after compiling this ḥadīth, it was decreed for me to migrate from Damascus to Amman, and then to travel from there to the United Arab Emirates, at the beginning of the year 1402 Hijri. In Qatar, I met some esteemed professors and doctors, and one of them gifted me a printed treatise of his on the weakening of this ḥadīth. When I read it, it became clear to me that he was new to this field, for two reasons I mentioned to him: The first: he limited his sourcing to some widely circulated printed sources, and thus he fell short significantly in accurately discussing it. He missed many paths and isnāds that are themselves authentic or good, let alone the supporting evidence and follow-ups, as it appears to anyone who compares his compilation with what I have compiled here. The second: he did not pay attention to the statements of the scholars who authenticated the ḥadīth, nor to their principle mentioned in "Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadīth": that a weak ḥadīth is strengthened by numerous paths, leading him to this grave error of weakening an authentic ḥadīth