the route of al-Aʿmash from al-Minhāl ibn ʿAmr from Yaʿlá with it, without the ḥadīth of the chapter. Al-Ḥākim said: "Its isnād is authentic," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him! However, there is a disconnection as will be mentioned. Al-Manāwī also criticized the ḥadīth due to (ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz), saying: "If it was al-Baghawī; he used to seek [knowledge] through narration, or Ibn al-Ḥājib; his religious commitment was not that strong, or al-Janāb; he is not trustworthy"! I say: This is much ado about nothing, for he is the ḥāfiẓ al-Baghawī without a doubt; he is the teacher of al-Ṭabarānī in this, and seeking [knowledge] through narration is not a flaw that discredits him, and therefore he was a reliable authority among all the muḥaddithīn, as is well known to the people of knowledge, and he was corroborated by al-Bayhaqī and al-Ḥākim. As for his objection to al-Suyūṭī's authentication of the ḥadīth; it is not valid except regarding its isnād, and it is based on what he mentioned of al-Suyūṭī's symbol for its authenticity, and the attribution of these symbols to al-Suyūṭī is doubtful, as I have verified in the introduction of "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ" and "Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ," so refer to either of them if you wish. However, the ḥadīth is authentic through its routes and the supporting evidence that will be indicated, and al-ʿAqīlī hinted at its strengthening as mentioned earlier. Al-Ṭabarānī also reported it (679) through the route of Yaḥyá ibn ʿĪsá from al-Aʿmash from al-Minhāl ibn ʿAmr who said: Ibn Yaʿlá ibn Murrah narrated to me from his father who said: I was with the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), and I saw three amazing things from him, he said... I said: he mentioned them without the ḥadīth of the chapter, and al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr included it in "Shamāʾil"