it is written ... the ḥadīth. This is how it appears in "al-Mustadrak," and in Ibn ʿAsākir: "She said: The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: it is written ...", and perhaps the first is correct. Al-Ḥākim said: "Authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. However, there is a point of contention from two perspectives: first, none of its narrators were cited by al-Bukhārī in his "Ṣaḥīḥ" as evidence. Second, Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbār was not cited by Muslim either; he is only among the narrators of Abū Dāwūd, as it is said. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said about him: "Weak, but his hearing of the sīrah is authentic." I say: By "sīrah," he means "Maghāzī Yūnus ibn Bukayr," as can be inferred from his biography in "al-Tahdhīb," which indicates that he is truthful, though his memory is weak. This is the conclusion reached by al-Ḥāfiẓ, who said in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful, but makes mistakes." This does not necessarily contradict al-Dhahabī's statement in "al-Mīzān": "Muslim has cited Yūnus in supporting evidence, not in the main texts, and al-Bukhārī mentioned him as a witness, and his ḥadīth is good." This is supported by Ibn Ḥibbān's statement in "al-Thiqāt" (8/45): "Our companions narrated from him; he sometimes contradicted, but I did not see anything in his ḥadīth that would require deviation from the path of the trustworthy to the ways of the criticized." Yūnus ibn ʿAmr is Yūnus ibn Abī Isḥāq: ʿAmr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī, who is truthful but makes minor errors, as al-Ḥāfiẓ said. In conclusion, the statement of al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī that the ḥadīth is authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs is an error