through the fourth chain as well. And Allāh knows best. (Note): Al-Haythamī mentioned in "al-Majmaʿ" (9/146) the ḥadīth from the narration of Abū al-Ṭufayl who said: al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī delivered a sermon... the ḥadīth in its entirety is like the fourth chain, and it includes the aforementioned addition. Then al-Haythamī said: "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" and "al-Kabīr" in a summarized form, as well as by Abū Yaʿlá, and al-Bazzār in a similar manner, and Aḥmad narrated it with much abbreviation, and the isnād of Aḥmad, along with some of the chains of al-Bazzār and al-Ṭabarānī, are ḥasan." I say: I have compiled for you all the narrations of these imāms and their chains—except for the chain of Abū al-Ṭufayl, as I have not yet found it—and they are all summarized as al-Haythamī explicitly stated, and they do not contain the objectionable addition found in al-Ḥākim's narration. If you understand this, it becomes clear to you the error of the jurist al-Haythamī in "al-Ṣawāʿiq" (p. 101) when he said: "Al-Bazzār and al-Ṭabarānī narrated from al-Ḥasan (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) through some ḥasan chains that he delivered a sermon, part of which was: Whoever knows me knows me..." etc. The explanation is that he relied on the compilation of the aforementioned ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī, summarizing it poorly, without realizing that the full sermon was uniquely reported by "al-Awsaṭ" of al-Ṭabarānī and not by the others, and that the mentioned ḥasan grading applies only to some of their chains, excluding the chain of Abū al-Ṭufayl, which al-Haythamī regrettably did not address. Then I came across its isnād in "al-Awsaṭ" (2344 - by my numbering), and it is from the narration of Salām ibn Abī ʿAmrah from Maʿrūf ibn Kharbūdh from Abū al-Ṭufayl. And Salām, Ibn Ḥibbān said about him in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" (1/341): "He narrates from reliable narrators with distortions, and his reports are not permissible to be used as evidence."