I say: He was corroborated with respect to its first part. Ibn al-Sunni said in The Deeds of the Day and Night (no. 33): Abu Muhammad ibn Saʿid informed us; Muhammad ibn Zunbur narrated to us; ʿAbd al-ʿAziz ibn Abi Hazim narrated to us with it. It contains the addition given in parentheses.

I say: Muhammad ibn Zunbur was truthful, though prone to errors, as al-Hafiz stated; thus, his corroboration is strong. Nor was ʿAbd al-ʿAziz ibn Abi Hazim alone in narrating it; rather, ʿAbd Allah ibn Jaʿfar corroborated him: Suhayl ibn Abi Salih informed us of it, and it contains the addition.

Al-Tirmidhi narrated it in his Sunan (4/229, with the commentary Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi) and said: “This is a good hadith.”

I say: It is as he said. That is, it is good due to external corroboration, as he explicitly stated at the end of his book. This is because this ʿAbd Allah ibn Jaʿfar was Abu Jaʿfar al-Madani, the father of ʿAli ibn al-Madini—and he was weak—but his hadith is strengthened by the corroboration of ʿAbd al-ʿAziz ibn Abi Hazim, who was trustworthy and whose narrations were relied upon in the two Sahihs. Had al-Tirmidhi said, “An authentic hadith,” that would have been closer to what is correct.

I have seen that Ibn Taymiyyah quoted him as saying: “A good, authentic hadith.” That would have been more appropriate, but I did not find this in our aforementioned copy of al-Tirmidhi. And Allah knows best.