he said so! And you know that the men of Abū Yaʿlá are the same as the men of al-Bazzār, with no difference except in his other narration, where ʿAbd al-Wāḥid made his teacher Farqad al-Sabkhi instead of Aslam al-Kūfī in the first narration. Both narrations revolve around ʿAbd al-Wāḥid, about whom there is no disagreement regarding his weakness, except with Ibn Ḥibbān, who, despite listing him among the "weak narrators," said about him: "He was someone who was so devoted to worship that he neglected precision, resulting in many anomalies in his narrations, thus invalidating the use of his narrations as evidence." Then he presented this ḥadīth for him. I say: Despite all this, he also listed him among the "reliable narrators"! Al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "He did not do well." I say: I do not think this is the "some" that al-Haythamī referred to when he said: "there is disagreement about him." Yes, it is possible that he meant Farqad, as there is disagreement about him among the majority, like Ibn Maʿīn and others, as they weakened him, except for Ibn Maʿīn in one narration. Even if the prevailing opinion is that he is reliable, what benefit is there in that when the narrator from him is ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Zayd?! (Note): The wording of the ḥadīth according to al-Ḥākim, which is a narration by Ibn ʿAdī, is: "Every flesh that grows from unlawful earnings, the Fire is more deserving of it." I said: Similar to what was mentioned by al-Haythamī is the statement of al-Mundhirī (3/15): "It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlá, al-Bazzār, and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ' and al-Bayhaqī, and some of their isnāds are good." I said: Perhaps the mentioned improvement refers to the isnād of 'al-Awsaṭ' and al-Bayhaqī, as I have not extended to them