I said: he indicates that it is rejected from the Musnad of ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth, and its flaw is this al-Ṣabāḥ, as it was mentioned by al-Haythamī in "al-Majmaʿ" (4/111) from Ḥudhayfah and ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth with an elevated chain, and he said: "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" and in it is al-Ṣabāḥ ibn Yaḥyá who is abandoned." Then there is another supporting narration from the ḥadīth of Abū Umāmah, but its chain is very weak, as it is from the narration of Ibrāhīm ibn Ḥibbān ibn Ḥakīm ibn ʿAlqamah ibn Saʿd ibn Muʿādh from Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Burd ibn Sinān from Makhūl from him with an elevated chain. It was produced by Ibn ʿAdī in the biography of this Ibrāhīm (Q 4/1), and he said: "Weak in ḥadīth." Then he presented two ḥadīths for him, this being one of them, and then he said: "These two ḥadīths along with other ḥadīths, most of them are fabricated and rejected, and so are the rest of his ḥadīths." In summary, the ḥadīth with its follow-up and first supporting narration does not fall below the rank of ḥasan. And Allāh knows best. Then I saw in some of my original manuscripts and old papers in my handwriting that al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Sakhāwī also graded it as ḥasan in "al-Fatāwá al-Ḥadīthiyyah" (Q 30/2). Then I found a third supporting narration for it narrated by ʿAbd al-Quddūs ibn Muḥammad al-ʿAṭṭār, who said: Yazīd ibn Tamīm ibn Zayd narrated to us, Abū Marḥūm al-Sindī narrated to me: al-Muntaṣir ibn ʿAmārah narrated to me from his father from Abū Dharr with an elevated chain similar to it. It was produced by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" (1/143/2), and he said: "It is not narrated from Abū Dharr except with this isnād, and ʿAbd al-Quddūs is unique in narrating it." I said: he is truthful from the shaykhs of al-Bukhārī, but those between him and Abū Dharr I did not know them, and I have..