It was recorded by Ibn Khuzaymah in his "Ṣaḥīḥ" (1938), Ibn Ḥibbān (2782), Aḥmad (4/127), in "Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah" (1748), al-Bazzār (2723), al-Fasawī in "al-Tārīkh" (2/345), al-Ḥasan ibn ʿArafah in "Juzʾ" (61/122), al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (18/251/628), Ibn ʿAdī in "al-Kāmil" (6/406), and from the manuscripts: Abū al-Qāsim al-Kattānī in "Juzʾ min Ḥadīthih" (Q 4/2), in "Majlis al-Biṭāqah" also (Q 188/1), Ibn Bishrān in "al-Amālī" (Q 14/1), Ibn Ḥamṣah in "Juzʾ al-Biṭāqah" (Q 70/2), Abū Ṭāhir al-Anbārī in "Mashyakhatih" (Q 149/1), Ibn ʿAsākir in "Tārīkh Dimashq" (16/682 and 683), and Abū Mūsá al-Madīnī in "Juzʾ min al-Amālī" (Q 1/2), all of them from Yūnus with it. I said: This isnād is ḥasan in the supporting evidences, its men are trustworthy, except for al-Ḥārith ibn Ziyād; he is unknown, not authenticated by anyone other than Ibn Ḥibbān, and no narrator is mentioned for him other than this Yūnus, therefore, the statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ about him: "weak in ḥadīth" is not on the right path. Moreover, it is not hidden that Ibn Khuzaymah's inclusion of his ḥadīth in "al-Ṣaḥīḥ" means he is considered trustworthy by him, although he is known for leniency in authentication and verification—like his student Ibn Ḥibbān—so at the very least, it is suitable for supporting evidence, and this is what those who strengthened this ḥadīth inclined towards, as will be mentioned. Despite this, the authentication by Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned was overlooked by al-Haythamī, who said in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (9/356):