it is a ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth. and al-Ḥākim said: "It is ṣaḥīḥ according to the conditions of Muslim." And al-Dhahabī agreed with him! And Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr was only narrated by Muslim as a follow-up. Indeed, he was followed by Saʿīd ibn Abī Hilāl in Ibn Ḥibbān (1930), thus it is ṣaḥīḥ, and all praise is due to Allāh. And it has a supporting narration from the ḥadīth of Abū Bakrah who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: and he mentioned it. It was recorded by al-Bukhārī in "al-Adab al-Mufrad" (1314), Ibn Mājah (4184), al-Ṭaḥāwī in "al-Mushkil" (4/238), and al-Ḥākim through the route of Hishām from Manṣūr ibn Zādān from al-Ḥasan from him, and al-Ḥākim said: "It is ṣaḥīḥ according to their conditions." And al-Dhahabī agreed with him. Al-Būṣīrī attributed it in "al-Zawāʾid" to Ibn Ḥibbān also in "Ṣaḥīḥ," and al-Haythamī only mentioned it in "al-Zawāʾid" from the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah as previously mentioned. Then al-Būṣīrī said: "If an objector challenges Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim in their authentication by quoting al-Dāraqutnī's statement that al-Ḥasan did not hear from Abū Bakrah. I said: al-Bukhārī relied in his "Ṣaḥīḥ" on the narration of al-Ḥasan from Abū Bakrah in four ḥadīths, and in "Musnad Aḥmad" and "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" by al-Ṭabarānī, it is explicitly stated that he heard from Abū Bakrah in several ḥadīths, including "This son of mine is a leader," and the one who affirms takes precedence over the one who denies." I said: And this is a correct response, but al-Ḥasan—who is al-Baṣrī—is a known mudallis for that, so it is not sufficient to establish his hearing from Abū Bakrah in general, rather it is necessary to know his hearing of this ḥadīth from him, and this is something we have not seen in any of the narrations, so the objection in this regard remains, but the ḥadīth is an acceptable witness for the ḥadīth of Abū Salamah from Abū Hurayrah. And Allāh knows best.