I said: This is a benefit from ʿAbd Allāh—who is Ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Aswad al-Baṣrī, one of al-Bukhārī's teachers—and he is a trustworthy memorizer. The ḥadīth has a corroborating narration from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī similar to it. It was recorded by al-Ṭaḥāwī in "Sharḥ al-Maʿānī" (2/234), and by Aḥmad (3/45) through the route of Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib from him. Its isnād is authentic. It was also recorded by Muslim (5/48), and al-Bayhaqī (5/296) through the route of Abū Naḍrah from him in a similar manner. It was recorded by the two Shaykhs and others through another route from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib from both Abū Saʿīd and Abū Hurayrah together, in a more complete form; it is referenced in "Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl" (5/190/1340); and "Aḥādīth al-Buyūʿ." (Notes): First: (Aḥmad) the teacher of al-Ṭabarānī, the narrator from (Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Tasnīm) is (Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ṣadaqah Abū Bakr al-Baghdādī), and he is a trustworthy memorizer, and his teacher (Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Tasnīm) is truthful, and thus al-Haythamī deemed his isnād good as will be mentioned. His name got mixed with his teacher's name, becoming his son in the manuscript of "Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn" as follows: (Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Tasnīm)! The editor did not notice this, so it appeared like that in its printed version (4/20/2027)! Consequently, he could not find his biography, nor could he find the ḥadīth in "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ"!! Also, there was a distortion and omission in his commentary on it when he translated for (Kathīr ibn Yasār);