I said: He has been corroborated in the first part of it. Ibn al-Sunnī said in "ʿAmal al-Yawm wa-al-Laylah" (no. 33): Abū Muḥammad ibn Ṣāʿid informed us, Muḥammad ibn Zanbūr narrated to us, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Abī Ḥāzim narrated it to us. And it includes the addition that is between the parentheses. I said: And Muḥammad ibn Zanbūr is truthful but has mistakes, as al-Ḥāfiẓ said, so his corroboration is strong. And ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Abī Ḥāzim was not alone in narrating it; rather, he was corroborated by ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar who informed us, Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ narrated it to us, and it includes the addition. It was extracted by al-Tirmidhī in "Sunan" (4/229 - with the commentary of al-Tuḥfah) and he said: "This is a ḥasan ḥadīth." I said: And it is as he said: meaning it is ḥasan due to other corroborations as he stated at the end of his book, because this ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar is Abū Jaʿfar al-Madanī, the father of ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī - and he is weak, but his ḥadīth is strengthened by the corroboration of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Abī Ḥāzim, who is trustworthy and relied upon in "al-Ṣaḥīḥayn," so if al-Tirmidhī had said: "ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth," it would have been closer to correctness. And I have seen that Ibn Taymiyyah has transmitted from him that he said: "ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth." And this is more appropriate for it, but I did not find that in our referenced copy of al-Tirmidhī. And Allāh knows best.