then the one who narrated to us from Shahr ibn Ḥawshab arrived and narrated this ḥadīth to us. I said, "This is how it appears in the 'Musnad': (a man) not named, and al-Nasāʾī narrated it in 'ʿAmal al-Yawm wa-al-Laylah' (469/805) through the path of al-Ṭayālisī; he said: 'from Abū Ẓabiyah.'" and he said: Thābit said: then Abū Ẓabiyah came to us and narrated this ḥadīth to us from Muʿādh. Likewise, it was extracted by Abū Dāwūd in his 'Sunan' (5042), Aḥmad in his 'Musnad' (5/234 and 241), and al-Ṭabarānī in his 'Muʿjam' (20/118/235) through the paths from Ḥammād ibn Salamah. Ibn Mājah narrated it (3881) without Thābit's statement. I said: and Abū Ẓabiyah is the Salafī from Ḥimṣ, narrated from by a group of trustworthy narrators other than Thābit al-Bunānī, so the restriction of the ḥāfiẓ to saying about him: "acceptable" is not acceptable! Especially since Ibn Maʿīn and others have authenticated him, as I mentioned under ḥadīth (595), and I add here by saying: al-Mundhirī said in 'al-Targhīb' (1/207): "a trustworthy Shāmī." So the ḥadīth of the translation—with the second isnād—from Ḥammād from Thābit from Abū Ẓabiyah is authentic, whereas its first isnād—from Thābit from Shahr from Abū Ẓabiyah—is weak, but it can be used as supporting evidence due to Shahr's known status. And from this only authentic path: it was extracted by Ibn Mājah (3881), and al-Aṣbahānī in 'al-Targhīb' (2/557/1330), and it is a narration for Aḥmad (5/244). (Note): The commentator on the ḥadīth in 'Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān' (1/287 - Damascus edition) overlooked two truths: