"this is a ḥadīth with a sound isnād." And al-Dhahabī agreed with him. I said: Its narrators are trustworthy and well-known, except for ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Maysarah, who is al-Ḥaḍramī al-Miṣrī. Only al-Ḥākim has declared him reliable, and he is lenient in accreditation like Ibn Ḥibbān and al-ʿAjlī, and he also declared him reliable (835). Therefore, the soul is not at ease with their exclusive accreditation, especially since the ḥāfiẓ said about this ʿAbd al-Raḥmān: "acceptable." meaning when corroborated. Otherwise, the ḥadīth is weak as indicated in the introduction. Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned him in "al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl" (2/2/285) and added nothing beyond saying: "He narrated from ʿUqayl ibn Khālid. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb narrated from him." I said: The best state for him is that he is of unknown status. Then it occurred to me that he should be treated as trustworthy, because a number of other trustworthy individuals besides Ibn Wahb narrated from him, including Saʿīd ibn ʿUfair and Yaḥyá ibn Bukayr, among others as mentioned in "al-Tahdhīb." Perhaps because of this, al-Haythamī indicated his reliability, saying in "al-Majmaʿ" (7/135): "al-Ṭabarānī narrated it, and its narrators are trustworthy." He is different from (ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Maysarah al-Ḥaḍramī Abū Salamah al-Ḥimṣī) whom al-Dhahabī declared reliable in "al-Kāshif." Hence, clarification was necessary. The ḥadīth was also attributed in "al-Durr al-Manthūr" (6/324) to Abū al-Shaykh, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqī in "al-Baʿth," but I did not see it in the photographed portion I have, which Shaykh Ḥammād al-Anṣārī enlarged, nor in the printed version. It appears to be in the last part of it, and Allāh knows best