the supporting evidence is acceptable, if Allāh the Exalted wills. Aḥmad Shākir authenticated it in his commentary on "al-Musnad"! As for the ḥadīth of Abū Bakrah, its narrators are also reliable, from the narrators of the two Shaykhs, except for Abū ʿAbd Allāh, the client of the family of Abū Burdah, whose condition is like that of Abū al-Khaṣīb. Ibn Abī Ḥātim also mentioned him (4/2/401) and did not mention any criticism of him, and al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "Accepted." In "al-Fatḥ" (11/53): "A Basran unknown." From this perspective, al-Ḥākim narrated it (4/272) but its wording is like that of Ibn ʿUmar in the Ṣaḥīḥ: "A man should not make another man stand from his seat and then sit in it." He said: "Authentic isnād." And al-Dhahabī agreed with him. I say: Its chain revolves around Shuʿbah from ʿAbd Rabbih ibn Saʿīd from Abū ʿAbd Allāh, the client of the family of Abū Burdah, from Saʿīd ibn Abī al-Ḥasan. There is a disagreement on it between Muslim ibn Ibrāhīm with Abū Dāwūd, and ʿAmr ibn Marzūq with al-Ḥākim. The first narrated it with wording similar to that of Ibn ʿUmar with Abū Dāwūd as mentioned earlier, and ʿAmr ibn Marzūq narrated it with wording like that of Ibn ʿUmar in the "Ṣaḥīḥ." When this differs with Muslim ibn Ibrāhīm, Muslim is more reliable in narration than ʿAmr, because Muslim is trustworthy and reliable, whereas ʿAmr, although trustworthy, has errors as mentioned in "al-Taqrīb," so his narration is less preferred. And Allāh knows best