and he was described in "Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ" (3/1049) as: "The authority of Khurasan." He died in the year 409. The ḥadīth was attributed by al-Mundhirī in "al-Targhīb" (2/153/18) to al-Bayhaqī, and he remained silent about it. As for the three commentators on it in their new commercial edition (!), they asserted (2/206) that it is "weak"! Even though they attributed it to the previously mentioned source of "Shuʿab al-Īmān"! This is one of the many evidences that they are ignorant of this science, stumbling in it like a blind man in a dark night. Why did they not at least mention the reason for its weakness? Thus, you see them authenticating and weakening without evidence, nor a clear book. May Allāh guide them, and may Allāh inspire us and them to sincerity in word and deed. Amīn. Despite this injustice and aggression; the ḥadīth has another chain and a supporting narration! As for the chain; it is narrated by Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq from Ibn Abī Najīḥ with a similar but more complete version. It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (25/104/271). Al-Haythamī said in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (10/304): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and its men are trustworthy; except that Ibn Isḥāq is a mudallis." The ḥāfiẓ remained silent about it in the biography of (Umm Mubashshir al-Anṣāriyyah) in "al-Iṣābah," and it seems that this is due to its chains or supporting narrations. As for the supporting narration; it is from the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās with al-Ḥākim, who authenticated it according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him, and it is as they said. It has been previously referenced under number (698), so there is no need for repetition.