thus, if you understand this, it becomes clear to you that the ḥadīth is authentic because it was narrated from him by one of the ʿAbādilah, namely ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb, as mentioned by al-Bayhaqī and others. Therefore, a distinction should be made between the path of Abū Dāwūd and others from Ibn Lahīʿah, which is considered weak, and the path of al-Bayhaqī, which is authenticated for the reasons we mentioned. This is a precise verification we have gained from the meticulous examinations of the imams in clarifying the conditions of the narrators, whether in criticism or validation. Success is from Allāh, the Exalted. Thirdly: al-Shawkānī's statement: "The ḥadīth was reported by Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Bayhaqī through two paths from Khawlah bint Yasār, and in it is Ibn Lahīʿah." This is an error, for the ḥadīth is only reported by them through the aforementioned path from Ibn Lahīʿah from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb from ʿĪsá ibn Ṭalḥah from Abū Hurayrah that Khawlah bint Yasār. Thus, the path ends with Abū Hurayrah, not Khawlah, and from him, ʿĪsá ibn Ṭalḥah, and nothing else. Indeed, Ibn Lahīʿah narrated it once in a different manner regarding his teacher, as he said in the narration of Mūsá ibn Dāwūd al-Ḍabbī from him: Ibn Lahīʿah narrated to us from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Abī Jaʿfar from ʿĪsá ibn Ṭalḥah with it. Aḥmad reported it (2/344). So, if Ibn Lahīʿah preserved it from another path of his from ʿĪsá ibn Ṭalḥah, otherwise it is one of his errors because it is not from the narration of one of the ʿAbādilah from him, rather it contradicts it as previously mentioned. Whether it is this or that, it is incorrect to say about this path that it is another path and also from Khawlah! Perhaps al-Shawkānī intended by the other path what al-Bayhaqī reported following the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah, from the path of Mahdī ibn Ḥafṣ, narrated to us by ʿAlī ibn Thābit from al-Wāziʿ ibn Nāfiʿ from Abū Salamah ibn