its people. This is what Ibn Ḥibbān explicitly stated, as mentioned earlier in "al-Lisān." In summary, al-Haythamī's criticism of the ḥadīth and his weakening of it is based on equating the two "Maymūns," which is a mistake for the reasons we mentioned, even though Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī agreed with him in his commentary on "al-Kashf" and our colleague al-Salafī in his commentary on "al-Kabīr al-Ṭabarānī"! There is another error in al-Haythamī's statement, even though those we mentioned agreed with him, which is his equating the isnāds of "al-Kabīr" and "al-Awsaṭ," which is not the case. The isnād in the latter is as follows: Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Shuʿayb narrated to us, Muḥammad ibn Abī Bilāl al-Taymī narrated to us, Khalaf ibn Khalīfah narrated from Muḥārib ibn Dithār from Ibn ʿUmar, raised with the wording mentioned by al-Haythamī. I said: This isnād is acceptable for supporting evidence and corroborations. Khalaf and those above him are from the men of Muslim, and Muḥammad ibn Abī Hilāl is the one who narrated from Mālik ibn Anas. Ibn Maʿīn said: There is nothing wrong with him, as mentioned in "Tārīkh Baghdād" (2/98). As for Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Shuʿayb, who is Abū Bakr al-Simsār, al-Khaṭīb also translated him (3/66) by his narration from a group, and Ismāʿīl al-Khaṭīb narrated from him. He died in the year (290) and no criticism or commendation was mentioned about him. The ḥadīth has many routes and supporting evidences with its meaning, many of which I have documented in "Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl" (830) and "al-Rawḍ al-Naḍīr" (195, 603).

- "Has it not reached you that I have cursed those who brand an animal on its face or strike it on its face?! So he forbade that." It was narrated by Abū Dāwūd (1/401-402): Muḥammad ibn Kathīr narrated to us, Sufyān informed us from Abū al-Zubayr from Jābir: "that the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) passed by a donkey that had been branded on its face, and he said: "and mentioned it