it was recorded by Muslim (1/42), Abū ʿAwānah (1/7), and Abū Yaʿlá in "Musnad" (2/411-412/1199), and through his route: Ibn Ḥibbān (8/162/6496), and al-Bayhaqī in "Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah" (5/229-230), and Aḥmad (3/11) through various chains from Abū Muʿāwiyah from al-Aʿmash from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Abū Hurayrah or from Abū Saʿīd ... and Ṭalḥah ibn Muṣarrif followed him from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Abū Hurayrah who said: ... he mentioned it, and did not doubt. it was recorded by Muslim, Abū ʿAwānah, and al-Nasāʾī in "al-Sunan al-Kubrā" (5/245/8794), and also by al-Bayhaqī (5/228-229 and 6/120-121). This is the preserved version from al-Aʿmash with his previously mentioned chain from Abū Hurayrah without doubt; for this is how it was recorded by Abū ʿAwānah, and al-Nasāʾī (8796 and 8797) through other routes from al-Aʿmash: they both recorded it from the route of Qatādah ibn al-Fuḍayl ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qatādah, and from the route of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Abī Ḥāzim from Sahl; both of them from al-Aʿmash with it. and it was recorded by Aḥmad (2/421-422) through the route of Fulayḥ from Sahl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ from Abū Hurayrah with it. This is how the isnād is, without mentioning the intermediary between Sahl and Abū Hurayrah, so it is clearly disconnected, and I do not know whether it was an omission by the copyist, or one of Fulayḥ's errors?! moreover, the narrator from him (Fazārah ibn ʿAmr), they did not mention any narrator for him other than Aḥmad, and he narrated another ḥadīth from Anas, and al-Ḥusaynī said: "there is a concern about it."