al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in "al-Awsaṭ" (2/53/1 - 2/5894 - my numbering): Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥaḍramī narrated to us, saying: Yaḥyá ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥammānī informed us, saying: Sharīk ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĪsá narrated from Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr from Abū Salamah from Abū Hurayrah in a marfūʿ form. And he said: "No one narrated it from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿĪsá except Sharīk, and no one narrated it from Sharīk except Yazīd ibn Hārūn and Yaḥyá al-Ḥammānī." I said: al-Haythamī criticized it due to al-Ḥammānī, saying in "al-Majmaʿ" (7/160): "al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in 'al-Awsaṭ', and in it is Yaḥyá ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Ḥammānī, and he is weak." I said: There are two points to consider: first, his statement: ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, whereas it is actually ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd as found in the books of men, and it may be a slip of the pen by the author, or an error by the scribe. The second: al-Ṭabarānī explicitly stated that al-Ḥammānī was followed by Yazīd ibn Hārūn, who is trustworthy among the men of the two Shaykhs, so criticizing the ḥadīth due to al-Ḥammānī is a clear mistake, and the correct view is to weaken it due to Sharīk, who is ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī, and he is weak due to poor memory. However, the ḥadīth is ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ, because it has a supporting narration from the ḥadīth of Buraydah ibn al-Ḥuṣayb in its entirety. Ibn Abī Shaybah recorded it in "al-Muṣannaf" (10/492-493) and Abū al-Qāsim al-Aṣbahānī in "al-Targhīb", and others whom I mentioned in my previous takhrīj of it in "Takhrīj al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah" (p. 126 - fourth edition) and I clarified that it includes Bashīr ibn al-Muhājir, who is truthful but lenient in ḥadīth as in "al-Taqrīb", and I said: