al-Bayhaqī from the route of Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Uways with the previously mentioned isnād, and he said: "Its isnād is good, and it is not in 'al-Musnad', nor in the books." Thus he said! Then I do not know the reason for his deeming its isnād good, as I am aware of its issues; unless he found a reliable source for it other than Ibn Ḥibbān, which I find unlikely! And Allāh knows best. Then he narrated (1/286-287) from the narration of Abū Yaʿlá through the route of Kawthar from Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar as a marfūʿ report similar to the ḥadīth of the chapter without the recitation of the verse; and it contains an addition with objectionable matters. And he said: "This is a strange ḥadīth from this perspective, and part of it has a witness in 'al-Ṣaḥīḥ', as will be mentioned..." I said: Its defect is this Kawthar — who is Ibn Ḥakīm; al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī said in 'al-Mughnī': "They abandoned his ḥadīth; and he has oddities." And it appeared in 'al-Nihāyah' as "Karz"! This is an error by the printer or the copyist, so I corrected it from 'Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd' (29/431/2869), and 'al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah al-Musnadah' (2/105/1). There is no mention of it in 'Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid', nor in the printed 'Musnad of Abū Yaʿlá', so it appears that it is in his 'al-Musnad al-Kabīr', which has not been printed, and Allāh knows best. And Muḥammad ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh was contradicted in his isnād and matn by Saʿīd ibn al-Marzubān Abū Saʿd: he said: from ʿAṭāʾ from al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) as a marfūʿ report similar to the ḥadīth of the chapter, in a summarized form without mentioning the verse and the occupation; and he added: he said: "Indeed, the eyes on that day will be staring."