Hilāl ibn Maimūn from ʿAṭāʾ ibn Yazīd al-Laythī from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: ... and he mentioned it. And through the route of Ibn Abī Shaybah: it was recorded by Abū Yaʿlá in "Musnad" (2/291/1011), and from this: Ibn Ḥibbān (431 - Mawārid). It was also recorded by Abū Dāwūd (560), and through his route: al-Baghawī in "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (3/341/788) — and he authenticated it (p. 339) —, and al-Ḥākim (1/208), and through his route: al-Bayhaqī in "Shuʿab al-Īmān" (3/48/2831) from other routes from Abū Muʿāwiyah with it, except that in al-Ḥākim's isnād it appears as: (Hilāl ibn Abī Maimūnah) with the addition of: (Abī) between the father and the son! Therefore, he said: "A ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs, for they both agreed on the authority of Hilāl ibn Abī Hilāl, and it is said: ibn Abī Maimūnah, and it is said: ibn ʿAlī, and it is said: ibn Usāmah: and all are one." I said: And al-Dhahabī agreed with him! It is an error upon an error; it occurred to al-Ḥākim in his isnād, differing from all the routes mentioned from Abū Muʿāwiyah — who is Muḥammad ibn Khāzim —, and this only narrates from Hilāl ibn Maimūn — who is al-Juhanī —, who was deemed trustworthy by Ibn Maʿīn and others, and they did not mention Abū Muʿāwiyah narrating from Hilāl ibn Abī Maimūnah, so it is among the errors of al-Ḥākim (may Allāh have mercy on him) that scholars pointed out in his biography; which occurred to him in his "Mustadrak." And what confirms this: is that the narration of al-Bayhaqī mentioned earlier from him is free from this error. The commentator did not notice it, saying: "al-Ḥākim recorded it (1/208) with the same isnād and authenticated it, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him"!