however, we can assert confidently that this does not harm the validity of the isnād because the uncertainty is between two trustworthy narrators, as previously mentioned, so there is no harm whether it is this one or that one. And Allāh knows best. As for the commentator's statement on "Sharḥ al-Sunnah": "And its isnād is authentic and strong according to the method of al-Bukhārī and those who followed him like al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Ḥākim, but weak according to the method of Aḥmad, al-Dāraqutnī, and others." I say: this statement lacks thorough investigation for several reasons: first, he did not express his own opinion on the isnād and the text of the ḥadīth, whether in authentication or weakening. Second, it is not correct to assert the authenticity of its isnād according to al-Bukhārī's method, because this would require that all its narrators are considered trustworthy by al-Bukhārī, including Bashīr ibn Sulaymān. Although some have deemed him trustworthy, they did not mention al-Bukhārī among them, and his silence about him in "al-Tārīkh" (1/2/99) and his inclusion in "al-Adab al-Mufrad" does not necessarily mean he is considered trustworthy by him, as is clear to the scholars, contrary to some of the biased from the Ibāḍīyah and others. Third, conversely, what he attributed to weakness according to Aḥmad's method and... is only valid if they viewed Siyar Abū Ḥamzah as weak or unknown, which is far from the truth, as nothing of that sort has been reported from them. Reflect on this. Moreover, there is another difference among the narrators concerning his statement at the end of the ḥadīth: "either with a swift death, or swift wealth." This is in several aspects: first, what is in the ḥadīth of the translation: