I said: Its isnād is authentic, its narrators are trustworthy, and al-Tirmidhī said: "A good authentic ḥadīth." Al-Ḥākim said: "Authentic isnād," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. It has been criticized for discontinuity, and I have addressed this in "al-Irwāʾ" (7/42). It has a second chain reported by Ibn Mājah (2/321) through Muḥammad ibn Ḥarb: My mother told me from her mother that she heard al-Miqdām ibn Maʿdīkarib narrate it. The mother of Muḥammad ibn Ḥarb and her mother are unknown. A third chain is with Ibn Ḥibbān (1348) from Ṣāliḥ ibn Yaḥyá ibn al-Miqdām ibn Maʿdīkarib—who is lenient—narrating from his father—who is obscure—from his grandfather al-Miqdām with it. A fourth chain is with al-Ṭabarānī (662) from Ḥassān ibn Ḥassān from Ḥarīz ibn ʿUthmān from Ḥabīb ibn ʿUbayd from al-Miqdām with it in a summarized form. This Ḥassān is weak. (Note): The first authentic chain for this ḥadīth is missing from "al-Iḥsān bi-Tartīb Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān" by al-Amīr ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, unlike the third lenient chain, which is established in it under number (5213), with both chains being confirmed in "Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān," as previously indicated by their numbers. I do not know if the omission is from its arranger, its copyist, or its printer. If it is the first, was it intentional or accidental? If it was the first, was it part of a methodology he adhered to, such as omitting repetitions, or was it an oversight? If it was the first—and this I find unlikely—two things can be said against it: first, in this case, we cannot consider "al-Iḥsān" as a substitute for its original: "Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān."