I said: it is a mursal ḥadīth with a sound isnād, and it includes a story. It is in "Ghāyat al-Marām" (140/207). The other: from Qatādah, marfūʿ with a similar narration. It was recorded by Ibn Jarīr who said: Bishr ibn Muʿādh narrated to us, saying: Jāmiʿ ibn Ḥammād narrated to us, saying: Yazīd ibn Zurayʿ narrated from Saʿīd from him. This isnād consists of trustworthy men from the narrators of "al-Tahdhīb," except for Jāmiʿ ibn Ḥammād, whom I do not know. Refer to what the scholar Shākir said in his commentary on it in the footnote of "al-Tafsīr" (10/516). Know that I had previously included the ḥadīth in the other book from the narration of Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī al-ʿAmiyāʾ in its extended form, which contains the addition I mentioned earlier from the narration of Abū Dāwūd and Abū Yaʿlá. I clarified the difference between their texts, and Ibn Abī al-ʿAmiyāʾ was unique in this narration. I weakened its isnād in "Takhrīj al-Mishkāt" (1/64) due to Ibn Abī al-ʿAmiyāʾ, and I mentioned that the ḥāfiẓ indicated he was lenient. I did the same in "Ghāyat al-Marām" (140/207), but I mentioned a supporting narration for it from the mursal of Abū Qilābah, then I said: "Perhaps it is ḥasan with this supporting narration. And Allāh knows best." Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Duwaysh—may Allāh have mercy on him—followed up on me in "Tanbīh al-Qārī" (27/29) by saying: "I said: And this is correct." And he added nothing more!