"he said: so al-Arqam sat and did not leave." I said: this suggests that the intended mosque is that of Medina, not Mecca. If it is said: what is the benefit of this investigation, whether related to the isnād or the matn, as long as the chain is weak according to you? In response, I say: there is no necessary connection between the two matters, for the matn may be authentic despite the weakness of its isnād due to the existence of another path for it, or a supporting evidence, which is known as a ḥadīth ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ li-ghayrih, and this is the case with this ḥadīth. For I found a strong supporting evidence from the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī who said: the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) bade farewell to a man and said to him: "Where are you going?" He said: I am going to Bayt al-Maqdis. So the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said to him: and he mentioned the ḥadīth in the wording of Yaḥyá ibn ʿImrān. It was recorded by Aḥmad, and his son ʿAbd Allāh in "Zawāʾid al-Musnad" (3/77) who said: my father narrated to me: ʿUthmān ibn Muḥammad narrated to us—and I heard it myself from ʿUthmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Shaybah—: Jarīr narrated to us from Mughīrah from Ibrāhīm from Sahm from Qazʿah from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī with it. I said: and this isnād is authentic, all its men are trustworthy, the men of the two Shaykhs except for Sahm, who is Minjāb, and he is trustworthy from the men of Muslim, and it appeared in "al-Musnad" as (Ibrāhīm ibn Sahl)! which is a typographical error. And Ibrāhīm is Ibn Yazīd al-Nakhaʿī. And Mughīrah is Ibn Miqsam al-Ḍabbī. And Jarīr is Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd