then al-Ṭabarānī also narrated it, number (925), through the path of Ḍimām ibn Ismāʿīl, similar to the narration of Abū Yaʿlá. 13, page 443, ḥadīth 1828. Add in the second line: However, in his commentary "al-Taysīr," he explicitly stated that its isnād is weak, and this is one of the benefits absent from his larger commentary: "Fayḍ al-Qadīr." 14, page 445, ḥadīth 1830. Add in the fourth line from the bottom: The commentator on "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (9/6, published by al-Maktab al-Islāmī) overlooked this anomaly when he cited the ḥadīth of Ibn Maẓʿūn and Jābir as evidence, neither of which mentions standing as previously noted. He should have alerted readers that their testimony is insufficient and that the addition in the ḥadīth is anomalous, as it is solely reported by a weak narrator. This is one of the subtleties of this science that most contemporary scholars overlook, and they do not become aware of it unless a scholar precedes them in pointing it out! 15, page 449, ḥadīth 1833: Then I saw ʿIzz al-Dīn Balīq had filled several pages in his book titled "Mawāzīn al-Qurʾān wa-al-Sunnah li-al-Aḥādīth al-Ṣaḥīḥah wa-al-Ḍaʿīfah wa-al-Mawḍūʿah" (!) (pages 71-77), claiming that the ḥadīth contradicts the Noble Qurʾān entirely (!) and he clung to the verses stating that Allāh created the heavens and the earth in six days, ignorantly or deliberately ignoring that the seven days in the ḥadīth are different from the six days mentioned in the verses, as I explained in the commentary on "al-Mishkāt." The source of his ignorance is that he interpreted (al-turba) in the ḥadīth as the earth, meaning the entire earth including mountains, trees, and so on, which is false as it contradicts the context of the ḥadīth, as is clear to anyone with understanding. What is meant by (al-turba) is the soil, not