I said: and it is as he said, except for the ʿanʿanah of Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit, but it was narrated from him by Shuʿbah, who said: Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit narrated to us, saying: I heard Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Makkī ... and he mentioned it similarly. It was recorded by al-Bukhārī (1979), and also by Muslim, al-Nasāʾī (1/326), Ibn Ḥibbān (6193), and Aḥmad (2/188-189) through various chains from Shuʿbah with a similar narration. ʿAṭāʾ followed him: I am Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Shāʿir with a similar narration. It was recorded by al-Bukhārī (1977), and also by Muslim, as well as al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Khuzaymah (2109), and Aḥmad (2/199). Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Abū ʿAwf followed Abū al-ʿAbbās, saying: I entered upon ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ ... the ḥadīth similarly. It was recorded by Aḥmad through the route of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq from Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥārith from Abū Salamah. Its narrators are trustworthy; except for the ʿanʿanah of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq. (Note): The ḥadīth of the chapter was mentioned by al-Suyūṭī in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" with the narration of al-Tirmidhī and al-Nasāʾī! It would have been more appropriate for him to reference Aḥmad instead of al-Nasāʾī; because the latter did not narrate it with the wording of the chapter, but rather similarly through the route of Shuʿbah as previously mentioned. If it is said: there is no harm in attributing it to him; because the difference between the narrations might be overlooked in such cases?! I said: if that is the case; then it would have been more appropriate to attribute it to the two Shaykhs; because they also recorded it through the route of Shuʿbah; as previously mentioned. And Allāh knows best. *