"this is a strange isnād and a strange text!" Thus he said! As for the isnād, it appears he did not recognize some of its narrators, such as (al-Ziyādī) and (al-Dabbāgh); for they are not among the narrators of "al-Tahdhīb." And as for the text, what is strange about it with the presence of the two corroborating narrations I mentioned earlier?! Then al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr said: "And it was narrated by the jurist Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥāmid in his book 'Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah' from Aḥmad ibn Ḥamdān al-Ḥīrī (original: al-Saḥrī) from ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad ibn Bujayr al-Bujayrī (original: al-Buḥturī!) from Bishr ibn Ādam from Muḥammad ibn ʿAwn Abū ʿAwn al-Ziyādī with it. It was also narrated through the route of Makkī ibn Ibrāhīm from Fāʾid Abū al-Waraqāʾ from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Awfá from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) similar to what was previously narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās." I say: This Abū al-Waraqāʾ is abandoned; thus he is not used as evidence, and his ḥadīth is with Abū Nuʿaym in "Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah" (p. 329). The corroboration from the words of al-Ḥāfiẓ is the narration of Bishr ibn Ādam - who is al-Baṣrī; al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAsqalānī said: "Truthful but has some weakness." Thus, it is a strong corroboration for the ḥadīth of Shaykh al-Ṭabarānī al-ʿAbbās ibn al-Faḍl al-Asfaṭī, and evidence that he preserved it, so there is no reason to find the isnād and text strange, especially since it is supported by what was previously indicated. And Allāh knows best. Then I found a third strong corroboration for it, narrated by ʿAmr ibn Abī ʿAmr from a man from Banī Salamah - trustworthy - from Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh: