and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (2/175), and a group of reliable narrators reported from him, including ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak, who narrated this ḥadīth from him, so I do not know why al-Tirmidhī did not at least consider it good. al-Ḥākim said: "The isnād is authentic." al-Dhahabī agreed with him. There is another chain for the first part of it, narrated by Abū al-Asbaṭ al-Ḥārithī al-Yamānī from Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr from Abū Salamah from Abū Hurayrah with it. It was recorded by Ibn ʿAdī (33/2). And this Abū al-Asbaṭ is Bishr ibn Rāfiʿ. al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "A jurist with weak ḥadīth." I have found two supporting narrations for it, one of them: from the ḥadīth of al-ʿAlāʾ ibn Khārijah, elevated with it. It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī, and its narrators have been deemed reliable as in "al-Majmaʿ" (8/152), and al-Mundhirī said (3/223): "There is no harm in its isnād." The other is from the ḥadīth of ʿAlī (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu). It was recorded by al-Khaṭīb in "al-Mawḍiḥ" (2/215), and its narrators are reliable except for ʿAlī ibn Ḥamzah al-ʿAlawī, for whom I did not find a biography, nor did al-Ṭūsī mention him in "his Index." The second part of the ḥadīth was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" from the ḥadīth of ʿAmr ibn Sahl. al-Haythamī said: