he said this, and al-Aʿẓamī followed him—as is his habit—and more surprising is what al-Munāwī did, for he quoted al-Haythamī's first statement, then said afterward: "And by this, it is known that the author's indication of its being ḥasan is a shortcoming, and it rightfully should be indicated as ṣaḥīḥ!" Those responsible for printing "al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr" (1/5/588/1939) also followed him, as is their habit! The error lies in two aspects: first, his statement "its men are trustworthy" does not mean that the isnād is ṣaḥīḥ, as has been explained more than once, especially since he followed it with his first statement: "its men were deemed trustworthy," which indicates that some of its men were deemed trustworthy with weak reliability. This expression is frequently used by the ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī in his book "al-Kāshif," and I have traced this statement in dozens of biographies, finding that all or most of them were solely deemed trustworthy by Ibn Ḥibbān, and he says about them and their likes in "al-Mīzān": "unknown," while the ḥāfiẓ says: "accepted." In the isnād of this ḥadīth, as you see, is Suwayd ibn Jablah, who was deemed trustworthy by Ibn Ḥibbān, but al-Bukhārī mentioned that four trustworthy people narrated from him, one of whom is Ḥarīz ibn ʿUthmān, and Abū Dāwūd said: "The shaykhs of Ḥarīz are trustworthy," and therefore, I leaned in "Taysīr al-Intifāʿ" to consider him truthful, so he is not the flaw in this ḥadīth, but rather it is the following one, for emphasis. The other is Isḥāq ibn Zubrayq, who is disputed, and Ibn Ḥibbān included him in "al-Thiqāt" (8/113) following Ibn Maʿīn's statement about him: "There is no harm in him." However, Muḥammad ibn ʿAwf al-Ṭāʾī al-Ḥimṣī declared him a liar, and he knows him better than others because he is from his town, and therefore the ḥāfiẓ said about him: "truthful but makes many mistakes," and Muḥammad ibn ʿAwf explicitly stated that he lies