until the day ʿUthmān was killed, for then it parted [from my side and fell]. Al-Tirmidhī said—and the context is his: "A ḥasan gharīb ḥadīth from this perspective." I said: The designation of ḥasan was omitted from some copies of "al-Tirmidhī," which led me, when I commented on "al-Mishkāt" (5933), to interpret "gharīb" as indicating weakness. Some of my contemporary Najdī critics, who did not notice this, have reached me—may Allāh have mercy on him—and said: "Al-Tirmidhī did not weaken it but said: ḥasan gharīb from this perspective." Now that I have been able to produce a scholarly analysis of the ḥadīth, two matters have become clear to me: the first is that al-Tirmidhī's designation of ḥasan is confirmed because it was transmitted by two esteemed scholars: Ibn Kathīr in "Tārīkh" (6/117) and al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar in "Fatḥ" (11/281). The second is that the ḥadīth is authentic when considering all its chains, which are three: the first is the aforementioned one from Abū al-ʿĀliyah from Abū Hurayrah, and I said: the context is al-Tirmidhī's, and the first narration and the last addition are from Aḥmad. The chain's men are trustworthy, the men of the two Shaykhs except for al-Muhājir, who is Ibn Makhlad Abū Makhlad; al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "Taqrīb": "Acceptable." Meaning when corroborated, and he has been corroborated as will follow. The second is from Sahl ibn Ziyād Abū Ziyād: Ayūb al-Sakhtiyānī narrated to us from Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn from Abū Hurayrah with a similar account, and its wording is more complete, including the first addition