“This ḥadīth is not known to us except through this chain.” – That is incorrect, for it has come down by other routes. It was recorded by Abū Dāwūd, al-Ḥākim, al-Dāraqutnī, and al-Bayhaqī through the isnād: Ṭalq b. Ghannām → ʿAbd al-Salām b. Ḥarb al-Mullāʾī → Budayl b. Maysarah → Abū l-Jawzāʾ → ʿĀʾishah. All the transmitters in this chain are trustworthy, and all are narrators of the Two Shaykhs, except that Muslim did not narrate from Ṭalq b. Ghannām. Hence al-Ḥākim’s verdict, “ṣaḥīḥ according to their criteria,” even though al-Dhahabī concurred, is unfounded. The report is in fact defective; al-Ḥāfiẓ states in al-Talkhīṣ (3/303): “Its transmitters are reliable, but there is a break in the chain.” I say: the gap is between Abū l-Jawzāʾ and ʿĀʾishah. Muslim has transmitted another ḥadīth through this route, which we cited earlier under the opening supplication no. (2); there we discussed its flaw in detail. Abū Dāwūd pointed to a different, non-damaging defect, which Ibn al-Turkumānī refuted in al-Jawhar al-Naqī. Were it not for the interruption, we would have judged the isnād sound; nonetheless, it serves as a satisfactory corroboration for the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd. A third route exists: al-Ṭabarānī narrates it from ʿAṭāʾ on ʿĀʾishah’s authority with similar wording, as al-Ḥāfiẓ notes. Al-Dāraqutnī also recorded it (no. 113) through Sahl b. ʿĀmir Abū ʿĀmir al-Bajalī → Mālik b. Mighwal → him. Its narrators are those of the Six Books except for Sahl, who is weak; Ibn ʿAdī said… (*) Thus reads the original, though that is not what is intended. Consult the Shaykh’s explanation (pp. 176–178). Allah knows best.