and the ḥadīth was recorded by Ibn Abī Shaybah in "al-Muṣannaf" (12/50/12098) through another chain from Mūsá ibn ʿUqbah alone. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr said in "al-Bidāyah" (7/209): "Aḥmad was unique in narrating it, and its isnād is good and sound, but they did not include it from this perspective." I say: It is one of the ḥadīths that al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī missed, as he did not include it in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid"! Even though it meets his criteria, as indicated by this statement of Ibn Kathīr. *

( [Indeed, you] have entered a time with many scholars of fiqh, few orators, few questioners, and many givers; action in it is better than knowledge. There will come a time with few scholars of fiqh, many orators, many questioners, and few givers; knowledge in it is better than action). It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" and in "Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn" (2/221/1225): ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd ibn Abī Maryam narrated to us: ʿAmr ibn Abī Salamah al-Tinnīsī narrated to us: Ṣadaqah ibn ʿAbd Allāh narrated to us: Zayd ibn Wāqid narrated to me from Ḥarām ibn Ḥakīm from his uncle ʿAbd Allāh ibn Saʿd from the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) who said: ... and he mentioned it. I say: And this isnād is weak, as al-ʿIrāqī said in "Takhrīj al-Iḥyāʾ" (1/7), and it has two defects: the first is Ṣadaqah ibn ʿAbd Allāh, who is known as al-Samīn, and he is weak, as stated by al-Dhahabī in "al-Kāshif" and al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Taqrīb," and it was criticized by al-Haythamī in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (1/127)