except by Allāh. We ask Allāh, the Exalted, to protect us from the trials of this time and the evils of its people. Then I saw that the ḥāfiẓ Ibrāhīm al-Nājī pointed out in "ʿAjālat al-Imlāʾ" (p. 520/1) that al-Mundhirī's statement—mentioned earlier—that al-Ḥākim narrated it from Abū Hurayrah from Ibn ʿAmr is incorrect; as there is no mention of Abū Hurayrah in al-Ḥākim's isnād at all! And it is very clear that he means the first path which includes Shahr, and that he did not come across the other path, as it is narrated from Abū Hurayrah from Ibn ʿAmr—(raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhumā). And among the negligence of the three commentators on "al-Targhīb" and their ignorance and imitation is that despite attributing (3/642) the ḥadīth to al-Ḥākim with the page number where the other path is found; they still weakened the ḥadīth and criticized it due to (Shahr ibn Ḥawshab)!!

- (If one of you wishes to ask, let him begin with praise and commendation of Allāh as He deserves, then send blessings upon the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), then ask after that; for it is more likely to be successful). Considered marfūʿ in ruling: It was recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in "al-Muṣannaf" (1/441/19642), and through his route: al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (9/170/8780) from Maʿmar from Abū Isḥāq from Abū ʿUbaydah ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd from Ibn Masʿūd who said: ... and he mentioned it. I said: And this isnād is weak due to the disconnection between Abū ʿUbaydah and his father. Al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (10/155): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and its men are the men of 'al-Ṣaḥīḥ'; except that Abū ʿUbaydah did not hear from his father." I said: So his statement (10/160): "And it is a good ḥadīth"!