and what indicates the aforementioned omission is that it was narrated by more than one person from Ibn Lahīʿah, among them al-Walīd ibn Muslim in "Tārīkh Ibn ʿAsākir" (9/810), and among them Muḥammad ibn Muʿāwiyah—who is the abandoned al-Nīsābūrī—at al-Bayhaqī in "Shuʿab al-Īmān" (7/123/9714). It appears that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb also narrated it from Ibn Lahīʿah. If this is confirmed, then the isnād is authentic. And Allāh knows best. As for the corroboration; Ibn Abī al-Dunyā also narrated it (42/5) through the path of Yaḥyá ibn Sulaym from Muḥammad ibn Muslim who said: It reached me that a man... the ḥadīth is limited to the ḥadīth of the chapter. This isnād is suitable for using as evidence for its disconnection; for Yaḥyá and Muḥammad—who are both from Ṭāʾif—have no connection with Ibn Lahīʿah the Egyptian, and they are both trustworthy though their memory is weak, and Muḥammad ibn Muslim is from the same generation as Ibn Lahīʿah, so he follows him—if Allāh wills—in general. Moreover, it seems that there is another corroborator, as al-Haythamī mentioned the ḥadīth in "al-Majmaʿ" (5/278-279) with a more complete context than that of Aḥmad, from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit, and he said: "al-Ṭabarānī narrated it with two isnāds, in one of them is Ibn Lahīʿah, and his ḥadīth is good, though weak, and in the other is Suwayd ibn Ibrāhīm, whom Ibn Maʿīn considered trustworthy in two narrations, while al-Nasāʾī weakened him, and the rest of their narrators are trustworthy." It is unfortunate that the part containing the musnad of ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit from "Muʿjam al-Ṭabarānī al-Kabīr" has not yet been printed, so we can know if there is a difference between the two isnāds?! And we can examine the isnād of (Suwayd ibn Ibrāhīm) to see if he fully corroborates Ibn Lahīʿah, or if his corroboration of him..