Yazīd, this, and ʿImrān ibn Mūsá, and despite that "Ibn al-Madīnī said: 'There is no harm in him, he is well-known.'" thus, his ḥadīth is ḥasan, if Allāh wills, and this is what I inclined towards previously under the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAdī referred to earlier with number (1244). I only repeated its extraction here with an additional benefit and extraction: that I saw al-Mundhirī in "al-Targhīb"—while I was preparing the second and third parts of "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb"—I saw that he criticized the ḥadīth due to Ibn Lahīʿah; he said (3/113/2): "It was narrated by al-Bazzār, and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr' and 'al-Awsaṭ' from the narration of Ibn Lahīʿah, and the rest of its isnād is trustworthy!" I said: and something similar is in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (5/158)! So I say: in this extraction—despite its brevity—there are astonishing matters of confusion; which al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Nājī did not point out: Firstly: they did not attribute it to Aḥmad, and he is more deserving of attribution due to his eminence and high rank; as is known. Secondly: they overlooked the follow-up of Yaḥyá ibn Ayyūb—who is al-Ghāfiqī al-Miṣrī—to Ibn Lahīʿah in "al-Kabīr al-Ṭabarānī," so there remains no reason to criticize it due to Ibn Lahīʿah, and as a result, the three commentators were misled by this criticism; thus they weakened the ḥadīth! Thirdly: they erred in attributing the narration of Ibn Lahīʿah to al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ," whereas he only has the aforementioned follow-up