it is known among those proficient in this science that al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī was a mudallis, so the authenticity of this ḥadīth is questionable regarding ʿAmr ibn Taghlib due to his lack of explicitness in hearing from him. However, the ḥadīth is authentic due to what strengthens it. In summary, the defect in this isnād is the ʿanʿanah, not the irsāl, as Dr. Fuʾād mistakenly thought in his commentary on "al-Ḥikam wa-al-Amthāl" by al-Māwardī (p. 100). He stated after declaring the ḥadīth weak and mentioning al-Ḥākim's statement: "ʿAmr ibn Taghlib has no narrator other than al-Ḥasan," and added: "He is al-Baṣrī, a tābiʿī, and he raised it directly to the Messenger, so the ḥadīth is mursal"! I say: This addition is connected to al-Ḥākim's words in such a way that anyone who has not first reviewed al-Ḥākim's preceding words cannot distinguish it from what follows, which is from Dr. Fuʾād's words secondly! Unless one is aware of the ignorance in this science that elevates itself above what is beneath al-Ḥākim by many levels!! And Allāh is the one whose help is sought. The ḥadīth appeared in "al-Amthāl" with (al-harj) instead of (al-jahl), and (al-ẓulm) instead of (al-ʿilm), and I suspect it is a scribal error. Dr. Fuʾād did not point out any of this, but rather attributed the ḥadīth to al-Ḥākim as mentioned earlier—despite the differences between his narration and that of "al-Amthāl"!!—and I did not find a witness for the wording (al-ẓulm) unlike (al-ʿilm), for I saw the ḥadīth in "al-Fitan" by Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī (fol. 15/2) through the route of ʿAlī ibn Maʿbad who said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿIṣmah narrated to us from Abū Ḥamzah from al-Ḥasan who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: and he mentioned the ḥadīth without the phrases of ignorance and tribulations, and added: "Ibn Maʿbad said: meaning the book." I say: I did not know ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿIṣmah. And Abū Ḥamzah, it appears, is the one mentioned in "Kuná al-Dūlābī" (1/156):