that the ḥadīth has supporting narrations, one of which is in "Ibn Mājah," and the rest are with al-Ṭabarānī and others. I had strengthened it with these in the original "Ṣifat al-Ṣalāh" relying on the authentication by al-Haythamī and the ḥāfiẓ, and I indicated this in "Ṣifat al-Ṣalāh." Al-Haythamī narrated it from Ibn ʿAbbās and deemed its narrators reliable, while the ḥāfiẓ weakened its isnād. It is also from the ḥadīth of Abū Barzah, whose narrators were deemed reliable, and the ḥāfiẓ considered its isnād good! And from the ḥadīth of ʿAlī—whose condition you know—and from the ḥadīth of Anas, whose isnād was weakened. When Allāh facilitated for some of them the printing of the sources to which the ḥadīth was attributed, it was no longer suitable for the principles of authentication to rely on those attributing it without directly referring to them. Especially since there is a contradiction between the shaykh and his student in the judgment—as you have seen—on some of them. Therefore, it became necessary for me to draw directly from them and issue a judgment on their isnāds, in accordance with the wisdom: "He who reaches the sea deems the streams insignificant." So I say, with Allāh's guidance: Firstly, the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Haythamī said (2/241): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr,' and Abū Yaʿlá, and its narrators are reliable!" Thus he said! And its isnād with Abū Yaʿlá (4/335/2447): Abū al-Rabīʿ narrated to us: Salām ibn Sulaym narrated to us from Zayd al-ʿAmmī from Abū Naḍrah from Ibn ʿAbbās... And from this chain, it was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī (12/167/12781): al-Ḥusayn ibn Isḥāq al-Tustarī narrated to us: Abū al-Rabīʿ al-Zahrānī narrated to us: Salām al-Ṭawīl narrated it. I say: And this isnād is very weak. Salām al-Ṭawīl is abandoned, as stated by al-Dhahabī in "al-Mughnī," and the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Taqrīb," and this is the statement of al-Haythamī in most of his evaluations; (see