the ḥadīth except the first part only! It might have been omitted by the printer or the copyist. It is possible that mentioning (Zayd ibn Thābit) is one of the errors of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Qurashī; for the ḥadīth is well-known from (Zayd ibn Khālid) through authentic chains, with slightly varying wordings, some adding to others, some of which are in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs" and elsewhere. I have included some of them in "al-Rawḍ al-Naḍīr" number (322), "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" (2266), and "al-Taʿlīq al-Raghīb" (2/96), and you can find some of the mentioned wordings in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb" (2/69/1226). al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī made an error by attributing the ḥadīth of the chapter in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr" (2/770) to al-Dārimī as well as Ibn Ḥibbān, and it is not with them in this complete form. You can find their wording in the mentioned place in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb" attributed to Ibn Ḥibbān and Ibn Mājah as well. al-Suyūṭī himself attributed it to Ibn Mājah in "al-Jāmiʿayn," and it is in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" (5/280/6070) from the first legitimate edition! Likewise, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī overlooked it; he did not include it in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid," even though it meets his criteria, and he included from the ḥadīth of Zayd ibn Thābit only the first part as previously mentioned. The three commentators on their new edition of the book "al-Targhīb" were misled by his statement: "Its men are the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ," so they authenticated it (2/215/1868)! This is due to their ignorance of this science; for there is no necessary connection between authenticity and this statement; it is possible that there is a defect affecting its authenticity, such as discontinuity, tadlīs, and other issues, as is the case here; for ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq - despite being among the men of (the Ṣaḥīḥ), meaning "Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim" - has weakness as previously mentioned, and for that reason, I limited myself to improving its isnād