I say: Firstly, attributing it to al-Tirmidhī is a pure error, for he did not include it at all. He only alluded to it following the ḥadīth of Asmāʾ, which will be mentioned, by saying: "And in the chapter, there is [a narration] from Abū Hurayrah and Umm Qays bint Miḥṣan." Therefore, when Ibn Sayyid al-Nās began to extract the ḥadīth, as was his custom in extracting the suspended ḥadīths of al-Tirmidhī, he only added: "It was narrated by Aḥmad," without attributing it to any place in his "Sunan," nor to any of his other books. Al-Mubārakfūrī did the same in his commentary on it. However, he made another error! He said (1/128): "It was narrated by Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasāʾī, and Ibn Mājah"! Secondly, labeling Ibn Lahīʿah and his isnād as weak is incorrect, for what is established from the collective statements of the imams about him is that he is reliable in himself, but he had poor memory. He used to narrate from his books, and when they burned, he narrated from memory and made mistakes. Some of them explicitly stated that his ḥadīth is authentic if it comes through one of the three ʿAbd Allāhs: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb, ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak, and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd al-Muqriʾ. So, the ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ghanī ibn Saʿīd al-Azdī said: If the ʿAbd Allāhs narrate from Ibn Lahīʿah, it is authentic, [meaning] Ibn al-Mubārak, Ibn Wahb, and al-Muqriʾ. Al-Sājī and others mentioned something similar. And similar is the statement of Nuʿaym ibn Ḥammād: I heard Ibn Mahdī say: "I do not consider anything I heard from the ḥadīth of Ibn Lahīʿah except what was heard by Ibn al-Mubārak and the like." Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar alluded to this by saying in "al-Taqrīb": "Trustworthy, but confused after his books burned, and the narration of Ibn al-Mubārak and Ibn Wahb from him is more reliable than others."