"It was narrated by Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" and "al-Kabīr" and al-Bazzār said: No one followed Hārūn ibn Isḥāq in this ḥadīth." I said: He is a well-known trustworthy narrator, as Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated from Ibn Maʿīn, so his singular narration does not harm the ḥadīth as established in "Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadīth," and Ibn Ḥibbān also deemed him trustworthy (7/582). There is also supporting evidence from a ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah that is elevated. It was extracted by Ibn Abī Shaybah (2/204) and from him by Ibn Mājah (1/350) and al-Nasāʾī (1/257) from Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān al-Aṣbahānī from Sahl from his father from him. Al-Nasāʾī said: "This is an error, and Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān al-Aṣbahānī is weak." Al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "He is truthful but makes mistakes." I said: It did not become clear to me, nor did I see anyone mention the aspect of al-Aṣbahānī's error in it, and perhaps it is the elevation, for Shuʿbah narrated from Manṣūr from Abū ʿUthmān, the client of al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah, from Abū Hurayrah who said: and he mentioned it as a mawqūf narration similar to it. It was extracted by al-Ṭayālisī (1/113) and Aḥmad (2/498). Its narrators are trustworthy, the narrators of the two Shaykhs, except for this Abū ʿUthmān, who is al-Tabbān. He was narrated from by Manṣūr ibn al-Muʿtamir, his son Mūsá, and Mughīrah ibn Miqṣam, and al-Tirmidhī deemed him ḥasan, and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt." I said: Thus, it is a ḥasan isnād, or at least it is susceptible to being considered ḥasan, and it is in the ruling of being elevated, because it is not said based on mere opinion, and thus it is a good supporting evidence for the narration of Ibn al-Aṣbahānī. There is another supporting evidence for the ḥadīth from the narration of Umm Ḥabībah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā). It was extracted by Muslim and other authors of the sunan, and others like Ibn Khuzaymah (1185 -