" and these aḥādīth along with others I have not mentioned are mostly those which Muḥammad ibn Thābit is not followed upon." Indeed, if al-Tirmidhī had said: "ḥadīth ḥasan," he would have been correct, for I found a corroborator and a witness for it. As for the corroborator, it is Zāʾidah ibn Abī al-Raqād who said: Ziyād al-Namīrī narrated to us from Anas with it. It was recorded by Abū Nuʿaym in "al-Ḥilyah" (6/268). Both Ziyād and Zāʾidah are weak but were deemed reliable, and al-Haythamī deemed another ḥadīth of theirs from Anas as ḥasan, saying: "Its isnād is ḥasan." I say: so at the very least, they can be used as supporting evidence. As for the witness, it is narrated by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĀmir: Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd narrated to us, Mālik from Nāfiʿ from Sālim from Ibn ʿUmar in a marfūʿ manner with it. It was recorded by Abū Nuʿaym (6/354) who said: "It is rare from the ḥadīth of Mālik, we did not write it except from the ḥadīth of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĀmir." I said: I did not recognize him, and it is possible that (ʿĀmir) is a scribal error for (Namīr), and if so, he is reliable. Then I saw what suggests that it is him, for al-Mizzī mentioned him among the narrators from Qutaybah, and those above him are reliable from the men of the two Shaykhs, so the isnād is ṣaḥīḥ, if the shaykh of Abū Nuʿaym (Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Maqdisī) is reliable, or a corroborator, as I did not find a biography for him, not even in "Tārīkh Ibn ʿAsākir," although Abū Nuʿaym in his previous statement of rarity indicated that he was corroborated. And Allāh knows best. Zayd ibn al-Ḥabbāb narrated that Ḥumayd al-Makkī, the client of Ibn ʿAlqamah, told him that ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ told him from Abū Hurayrah in a marfūʿ manner with it, except that he said instead of "the circle of remembrance":