the men of the six [books], as is the case here. They could have remained silent and not spoken without knowledge, especially in weakening the authentic ḥadīths of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). Had they possessed some knowledge of the art of authentication and weakening, they could have authenticated it with its supporting evidence, especially since some of it is what they themselves have strengthened! The first part of it they have deemed good (2/146/1720/1) in imitation of al-Mundhirī! It contains the word: "al-mahā," which is objectionable to me due to the weakness of its isnād, according to al-Ṭabarānī from Ibn ʿAbbās. Therefore, I included it in "Ḍaʿīf al-Targhīb," but it is an acceptable supporting evidence for this part. It has another supporting evidence from a different route from Ibn ʿAmr, also with al-Bayhaqī, who included it just before the ḥadīth of the chapter, and its isnād is at least good; however, the three commentators also wronged it (2/147/1722/1) by weakening it! for the reason I mentioned earlier. As for the other part, that the Black Stone is from Paradise; it is supported by the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, which they also deemed good (2/146/1720), and the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAmr, which they deemed good with its supporting evidence (1722). It has a third supporting evidence from the ḥadīth of Anas, which is included in "al-Ṣaḥīḥah," volume six, number (2618), and it is under publication and will be in the hands of the readers soon, if Allāh wills (1). We had previously published the ḥadīth of the chapter under number (2619), but it seemed to us to increase in verification and benefit; so I published it again. This necessitated the clarification. It remains to consider that the apparent meaning of his statement: "There is nothing on earth from Paradise except it," contradicts what is established in some ḥadīths that mention along with the stone: "the planting of the ʿajwah, and ounces that descend into the Euphrates every day from the blessings of Paradise"; as previously mentioned under number (3111). So how can they be reconciled?