It was recorded by al-Bayhaqī, as well as Abū al-Ḥasan al-Qaṣṣār in "His ḥadīth from Ibn Abī Ḥātim" (2/2), Ibn al-Ḥimṣī al-Ṣūfī in "Selections from His Auditions" (33/1), and Ibn Mandah in "Al-Maʿrifah" (2/321/2). Al-Bayhaqī said: Its isnād is weak. "Ibn Lahīʿah was the sole narrator of it." I said: Ibn al-Mulaqqin stated in "Khulāṣat al-Ibrīz li-al-Nabīh, Ḥāfiẓ Adillat al-Tanbīh" (89/2): "They have weakened him, but some have deemed him reliable." Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "Fatḥ al-Bārī" (1/266): "It was narrated by Abū Dāwūd and others, and its isnād is weak, but it has a mursal corroboration." This was transmitted from him by the author of "ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd" (1/141-142) and he affirmed it! Al-Ḥāfiẓ also said in "Bulūgh al-Marām": "It was recorded by al-Tirmidhī, and its isnād is weak." Its commentator al-Ṣanʿānī (1/55) following his source "Badr al-Tamām" (1/29/1) said: "It was also recorded by al-Bayhaqī, and it includes Ibn Lahīʿah." A group was misled by this statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ and attributed it following him to al-Tirmidhī, among them Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān in "Al-Rawḍah al-Nadiyyah" (1/17), and before him al-Shawkānī in "Nayl al-Awṭār" who said (1/35): "It was recorded by al-Tirmidhī, Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Bayhaqī through two chains from Khawlah bint Yasār, and it includes Ibn Lahīʿah." Al-Ḥāfiẓ also said in "Al-Talkhīṣ" (13) but he did not mention al-Tirmidhī and Aḥmad. I say: In the words of these esteemed scholars, there are errors that cannot be overlooked