by him, except that he stopped it at Abū Saʿīd. It was recorded by al-Ḥākim. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak also followed him from Sufyān with it stopped. It was recorded by al-Nasāʾī. Then it was recorded from the path of Ghundar from Shuʿbah with his isnād stopped. There is no doubt that the stopped version has a more authentic isnād, but the ḥāfiẓ said: "Such a statement is not said from mere opinion, so it has the ruling of being elevated." Then I found a supporting narration for the ḥadīth, as Ibn Bishrān said in "al-Amālī" (147/1): Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir al-ʿAlawī - in Medina - informed us: Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Naṣr al-Baghdādī, known as (al-Maqdisī), narrated to us: Muḥammad ibn Ḥassān al-Azraq narrated to us: Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ narrated to us from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah from his father from ʿĀʾishah as an elevated ḥadīth. I said: al-Azraq is trustworthy, translated in "al-Tahdhīb," and those above him are from the men of the two Shaykhs. As for al-Maqdisī, I did not recognize him, nor did I see him in "Tārīkh Baghdād," which is his criterion. I also did not recognize al-ʿAlawī. In summary: the ḥadīth is authentic through its collective elevated paths, and the stopped version does not contradict it because it is not said from mere opinion, as previously mentioned by the ḥāfiẓ. Perhaps for this reason, Ibn al-Qayyim included it in "Zād al-Maʿād" (1/69) among the accepted matters, but he attributed it to "Sunan al-Nasāʾī," which is an error that the commentator did not notice. Then he fell short in its referencing, failing greatly, as he only attributed it to Ibn al-Sunnī and weakened its isnād—which is as mentioned earlier, unlike the isnāds before it—thus giving the impression that the ḥadīth is weak. And Allāh is the one whose help is sought.