and it was narrated in a connected form from the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, Abū al-Ṭufayl, Anas ibn Mālik, and Suwayd ibn ʿAmr. 1 - As for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, it was connected by al-Qaṭīʿī in "Juzʾ al-Alf Dīnār" (p. 38/2): Muḥammad narrated to us, saying: Muʿādh ibn Muʿādh ibn Ṣuqayr—an associate of ʿUthmān ibn ʿUmar—narrated to us, saying: al-Barāʾ ibn Yazīd al-Ghanawī narrated to us, saying: Abū Jamrah narrated from him. And with this isnād, al-Ṭabarānī also reported it as in "al-Muntaqá minhu" (4/4/1). I said: And Muḥammad is Ibn Yūnus ibn Mūsá al-Kudaymī, and he is accused of lying, so he is not to be used as evidence. However, perhaps he was not alone in this, for al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (8/152): "It was narrated by al-Bazzār, and in it is Yazīd ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Barāʾ al-Ghanawī, and he is weak." I said: So he did not criticize it with al-Kudaymī, for if he were in the isnād of al-Bazzār as well, he would not have left criticizing it with him to criticize it with the weak one, namely al-Ghanawī. Then his statement: "And in it is Yazīd ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Barāʾ" is perhaps an error from him or from some copyists, for this name does not exist, and it is—as in the isnād of al-Qaṭīʿī and al-Ṭabarānī—al-Barāʾ ibn Yazīd al-Ghanawī, and he is al-Barāʾ ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd attributed to his grandfather, and he is weak as in "al-Taqrīb." Then I came across the isnād of al-Bazzār in "Kashf al-Astār" (1877), and it is the same isnād as al-Qaṭīʿī, except that he attributed Muḥammad, saying: (Ibn Yūnus). 2 - As for the ḥadīth of Abū al-Ṭufayl, it was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and in it is an unnamed narrator as al-Haythamī said. 3 and 4 - As for the ḥadīth of Anas and Suwayd, al-Suyūṭī attributed them to al-Bayhaqī in "al-Shuʿab," and I did not come across their isnād, nor who indicated their defect. In summary, the ḥadīth, with all its chains, is ḥasan at the very least