undermine the authenticity of the ḥadīth, as the first part of it is established in al-Bukhārī as previously mentioned. As for the other part, it has other supporting evidence that will be mentioned, Allāh willing, under number (2036). Then I saw that the ḥadīth was also recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (20/25/30) from his teacher Mūsá ibn Hārūn, who is trustworthy, with the isnād of Ibn al-Imām Aḥmad from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar from Umm Bakr bint al-Miswar from Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Abī Rāfiʿ.. This is how he said: "from Jaʿfar.." instead of: "and Jaʿfar" in the isnād of Ibn al-Imām Aḥmad, and this is closer to being correct, because they did not mention that Umm Bakr bint al-Miswar narrated from Jaʿfar. Furthermore, we see that it was attributed to Muḥammad in this narration of al-Ṭabarānī, which can be considered as a preference for it being Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq, as I mentioned at the beginning of the analysis. This is supported by the narration of Isḥāq ibn Muḥammad al-Farwī: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar al-Zuhrī (originally al-Zāhirī, which is an error) narrated from Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad with it, without the other part. It was recorded by al-Ḥākim (3/154) who said: "The isnād is authentic." Al-Dhahabī agreed with him. I said: Based on the previous investigation, it is more likely that the narrator of the ḥadīth from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Abī Rāfiʿ is Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq, may Allāh have mercy on him. Thus, the ḥadīth returns to what we had judged it to be in terms of the quality of its isnād, and we have learned from it that this Jaʿfar is one of the teachers of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar al-Miswarī al-Zuhrī, which is a rare benefit not mentioned in his biography in the books of men, so let it be added to them. And with Allāh is success