it is possible to say: it is likely that between Saʿīd and Abū Mūsá there was Abū Burdah ibn Abī Mūsá; for Saʿīd had written to Abū Burdah when he was in charge of the judiciary of Kūfah. And Allāh knows best. However, the ḥadīth is authentic in any case; for it has a corroborating report from Abū Hurayrah, raised to the Prophet, similar to it, and its wording and documentation have been previously mentioned from the narration of Muslim and others through two chains from him under number (157). I will add here and say: Abū ʿAwānah also reported it (1/104) from the two chains, as did Aḥmad (2/317 and 350), and al-Baghawī in "Sharḥ al-Sunan" (1/105) from one of them. (Note): There have been strange errors regarding this ḥadīth that are worth mentioning: 1- The ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr attributed it to "Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim," from Abū Mūsá al-Ashʿarī! The two Ḥalabīs followed him in their abridgments, and al-Ṣābūnī added to his fellow townsman, saying in the footnote: "Muslim reported it from Abū Mūsá al-Ashʿarī"! Thus misleading the readers—as is his habit—into thinking that the documentation was from his knowledge! Pretending to possess what he was not given in the first place. Then he fell into error due to his ignorance by blindly following others a second time. Then he added insult to injury by attributing the documentation to himself instead of Ibn Kathīr's statement: "In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim..." even though he—meaning al-Ṣābūnī—had abbreviated this statement in the text by saying: "in the authentic collection," which is appropriate for the abridgment, whereas the footnote is undoubtedly pretentious, even if it were correct. So, O Allāh, guide him! Had he been knowledgeable in documentation, his footnote would have been a correction of this error, clarifying that the correct attribution is that Muslim only narrated it from the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah as previously mentioned. 2- Conversely, al-Haythamī included the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah in "Majmaʿ..