they could not do otherwise! But they said: "It is ḥasan due to its preceding witness!" They mean the ḥadīth of al-Nuʿmān ibn Bashīr, which is agreed upon, and its wording differs from this in some letters. If it were not for the authenticity of its isnād, I would not have deemed it ḥasan due to it, because of the mentioned differences. It is cited in "Ghāyat al-Marām" (30/20). It has a brief supporting witness from the ḥadīth of ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir similar to it. It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlá in "his Musnad" (3/213/1653), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ" (2/437/1756); he said: "It is not narrated from ʿAmmār except through this isnād." Likewise, it was narrated by Abū Nuʿaym in "al-Ḥilyah" (9/236), and he said: "It is rare from the ḥadīth of ʿAmmār, narrated only by Mūsá." I said: It is weak; as al-Haythamī said (4/73) - and he attributed it to "al-Kabīr of al-Ṭabarānī" as well. And he said in another place (10/293): ".. and it is abandoned." And he attributed it to Abū Yaʿlá. And it appeared in his Musnad: "Mūsá ibn ʿUbaydah: Saʿd ibn Ibrāhīm informed me from someone who informed him from ʿAmmār." The commentator criticized it for the anonymity of the report! And he quoted al-Haythamī attributing it to "the two Muʿjams," and said: "He missed attributing it to Abū Yaʿlá!" And you know that he attributed it to him in the other place, and he did not realize that he missed that it came..