I said: He did not provide its wording. The first isnād is good; all its men are trustworthy and well-known from the men of "al-Tahdhīb" except for Ayyūb ibn Ḥassān al-Jarashī, who is reliable in ḥadīth as Ibn Abī Ḥātim said (1/1/244) from his father. And except for al-Maʿmarī, who is truthful and reliable, and has a biography in "al-Mīzān" and "al-Lisān" and others. And ʿĀṣim ibn Bahdalah - who is the son of Abū al-Nujūd - there is known criticism about him, but his ḥadīth does not fall below the rank of ḥasan. And Abān is Ibn Yazīd al-ʿAṭṭār, the trustworthy one, relied upon by the two Shaykhs, and al-Haythamī made a grave error regarding him, saying (2/299): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr' and in it is Abān ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh, who was declared trustworthy by Ayyūb and Salīm al-ʿAlawī, but was weakened by Shuʿbah, Aḥmad, Ibn Maʿīn, and Abū Ḥātim." This is clarified in two ways: first, he did not notice what was in the isnād itself, indicating that Abān is al-ʿAṭṭār, and he interpreted it on his own as Abān ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh, who is abandoned according to al-Ḥāfiẓ, thus making the ḥadīth weak! I was once misled by this in some of my writings, so it should be corrected. The second: he overlooked the follow-up of al-Rabīʿ ibn Ḥuẓayyān to Abān, which al-Ṭabarānī presented after the ḥadīth as I saw, and this follow-up is acceptable, for this al-Rabīʿ was mentioned by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (1/2/459) from the narration of two trustworthy narrators about him. And he has a third narrator, who is ʿAbd al-Rabbih, the narrator of this ḥadīth from him, mentioned by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (3/1/44) from the narration of two trustworthy narrators about him, and he did not mention any criticism or commendation about him, and al-Rabīʿ was said by Abū Zurʿah: