so it is surprising that al-Bayhaqī overlooked this detail and stated that it is not a valid proof? A similar statement is made by al-Mundhirī in "Mukhtaṣar Abī Dāwūd." Even more surprising is the acknowledgment by al-Zaylaʿī in "Naṣb al-Rāyah" (4/195) of both of them, and the silence of Ibn al-Turkumanī in "al-Jawhar al-Naqī" on al-Bayhaqī's oversight, even though the ḥadīth is the Ḥanafīs' proof for the prohibition of the dhab. They should have clarified the deviation from correctness in this matter in defense of the truth, not out of bias for the madhhab, which is the stance taken by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, may Allāh have mercy on him, even though the ḥadīth apparently contradicts his madhhab! He said, may Allāh have mercy on him, in "al-Fatḥ" (9/547): "Abū Dāwūd reported it with a good isnād... and the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAyyāsh from the Syrians is strong, and these are trustworthy Syrians, and one should not be deceived by al-Khaṭṭābī's statement that its isnād is not that strong. And Ibn Ḥazm's statement: it contains weak and unknown narrators. And al-Bayhaqī's statement: Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh is the sole narrator and it is not a valid proof. And Ibn al-Jawzī's statement: it is not authentic. In all of this, there is evident leniency. For Ismāʿīl's narration from the Syrians is strong according to al-Bukhārī, and al-Tirmidhī authenticated some of it... and the past ḥadīths, even if they explicitly and implicitly indicate permissibility, textually and by implication, the reconciliation between them and this one carries the prohibition in it to the initial situation when it was thought that the dhab might have been transformed, and at that time, the pots were ordered to be overturned, then he paused and neither commanded nor prohibited it, and the permission in it is carried to the later situation when it was known that the transformed has no offspring, then after that, he found it repulsive and did not eat it nor prohibit it, and it was eaten at his table, indicating permissibility, and the dislike is for those who find it repulsive, and the ḥadīths of permissibility are for those who do not find it repulsive, and it does not necessarily mean that it is disliked in absolute terms." I say: In summary, the ḥadīth is established, and its opposition to what is more authentic does not necessitate its weakness, it is from the category of the accepted, and reconciliation between it and what is more authentic is required, in the manner known from al-Ḥāfiẓ's words, and its conclusion is that it is carried on dislike, not prohibition, for those who find it repulsive, and al-Ṭabarānī also carried it on this. And Allāh knows best