the first: from Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī from him in an abbreviated form similar to it. It was recorded by al-Bukhārī (829, 830, 1224, 1225, 1230, and 6670) and Muslim (2/83-84) and Ibn Ḥibbān (2666-2668) and others through his paths. It is also included in "Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl" (2/45/338) and "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" (946), so we will not prolong the discussion of its extraction except as needed. The additions are for the two Shaykhs or one of them, except for the third, which is for others as will come. the second: from al-Ḍaḥḥāk from ʿUthmān from him. It was recorded by Ibn Khuzaymah in his "Ṣaḥīḥ" (2/115/1030) and al-Ḥākim (1/322) and the context is his, and he said: "This is an explained ḥadīth, authentic according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs!" and al-Dhahabī agreed! I said: al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿUthmān was not recorded by al-Bukhārī, so it is according to the condition of Muslim alone, and it has slight weakness, which is strengthened by what follows. the third: from Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd from him. It was recorded by Ibn Khuzaymah (1031) - and he has the second addition - and Ibn al-Jārūd in "al-Muntaqá" (2-93/242) and Ibn Ḥibbān (2669-2670) with the addition: "so we glorified with him." I said: Its isnād is authentic according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, so it was more appropriate for al-Ḥākim to include it than the previous one. And know that among the reasons for including this ḥadīth here are matters I have come across, and I did not wish to leave without pointing them out: the first: I saw the commentator on "al-Muntaqá" by Ibn al-Jārūd attributed the ḥadīth from the narration of Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd to the six and others, and they do not have the addition of glorification. Our friend pointed this out