secondly: then after some time, I followed up with my statement: "Then I saw it in 'al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl' (4/2/129) from the narration of three trustworthy narrators from him, so it might be in 'Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān', and some ḥadīths of the chapter testify to it." thirdly: then after my migration to (ʿAmān) in the year (1400 AH) and settling there, I acquired a printed copy in India of 'Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān', about ten years ago, then I organized it alphabetically before I owned its printed indexes titled 'al-Jāmiʿ...', and over time my index took on a new form of commentary and verification, unmatched by the verifier of 'al-Thiqāt', let alone the author of 'al-Jāmiʿ', such as confirming the reliability of some narrators, criticizing them, or declaring them unknown, and other benefits; like pointing to some of their ḥadīths. And when I was these days in the process of correcting the proofs of the new edition of my book 'Ḍaʿīf al-Targhīb', and undertaking a review of its original 'al-Taʿlīq al-Raghīb'; I found in it the ḥadīth of the translation, based on the old commentary previously mentioned in (firstly), so I referred back to my book 'Tartīb al-Thiqāt' (1), and found that I had commented on it in a manner similar to what was mentioned earlier from the narration of the five trustworthy narrators from its narrator (Yaḥyá ibn Abī Asīd), and the authentication of al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī of the ḥadīth, and I concluded the commentary by saying: ".. he is truthful." So it strongly inclined me to believe that the ḥadīth is strong; due to the removal of the unknown status of (Yaḥyá), but for the sake of thorough investigation and caution in the ḥadīth of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), and to not attribute to him what we are not certain of its authenticity; I posed a question to myself, which is: perhaps among those below him in the chain of narrators, there is someone weak