I said: The narration of Sufyān that is mawqūf was recorded by al-Nasāʾī (954) and also by al-Ḥākim through the route of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī from him, from Abū Hāshim, as mawqūf. Yūsuf ibn Asbāṭ narrated it from Sufyān as marfūʿ with the last part of it. It was recorded by Ibn al-Sunnī (number 30). However, Ibn Asbāṭ is weak. Hushaym narrated it from Abū Hāshim, but there is a difference regarding whether it is mawqūf or marfūʿ. Abū al-Nuʿmān narrated it from him as mawqūf with the first part similar to it. It was recorded by al-Dārimī (2/454). Naʿīm ibn Ḥammād opposed him and narrated it from him as marfūʿ. It was recorded by al-Ḥākim (2/368) who said: "The isnād is authentic"!! Qays ibn al-Rabīʿ opposed all of them and said: from Abū Hāshim al-Rummānī from Abū Majlaz al-Sudūsī from Qays ibn Abī Ḥāzim al-Bajalī from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī as marfūʿ with the last section. It was recorded by al-Khaṭīb in "al-Tārīkh" (8/25) and there were some typographical errors in its isnād. I said: Qays ibn al-Rabīʿ has poor memory, and he contradicted them by saying: "Qays ibn Abī Ḥāzim" instead of their saying: "Qays ibn ʿAbbād." In conclusion: The ḥadīth is authentic, because even though the isnād is more likely to be mawqūf, it is clear that such a statement would not be said from personal opinion, so it has the ruling of being marfūʿ. And Allāh knows best