"where is the little one? Call for the little one." Then Ḥasan came running and fell into his lap. He put his hand in his beard, and then the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) opened his mouth and put his mouth into his. Then he said: and he mentioned it. Al-Ḥākim said: "The isnād is authentic." Al-Dhahabī agreed with him. I say: It is only ḥasan due to the slight issue with Hishām ibn Saʿd. (Note): In al-Ḥākim's version, (al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī) appears instead of (Ḥasan), and it is likely a mistake from the narrator he had (Abū ʿUbaydah ibn al-Fiḍl ibn ʿIyāḍ), as al-Dhahabī said: "He is lenient, Ibn al-Jawzī said: weak." Al-Ḥāfiẓ followed up by saying: "Al-Dāraqutnī authenticated him, so Ibn al-Jawzī's weakening without cause should not be considered. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in 'al-Thiqāt' and included his ḥadīth in 'Ṣaḥīḥ', as did al-Ḥākim..." I said: I did not see him in the printed version of 'al-Thiqāt' nor in the index of 'Ṣaḥīḥ', and it is not a typographical error, as he mentioned him in the biography of (al-Ḥusayn) (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu). What confirms the error is that the ḥadīth was reported by al-Bukhārī (5884) in a shortened form, as well as Muslim (7/130), Ibn Ḥibbān (6924), and Aḥmad (2/331) through another chain from Abū Hurayrah, and it includes (al-Ḥasan). Among the errors of the brother (Waṣī Allāh) in his commentary on 'al-Faḍāʾil' is that he weakened its isnād due to (Hishām ibn Saʿd). Then he corrected himself by saying: "But the ḥadīth is authentic, as it was reported by al-Bukhārī... and Muslim...!" It is clear that this only supports part of it, so the entire ḥadīth is not strengthened by it, if it were