and Ibn Lahīʿah, ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith, and al-Layth ibn Saʿd disagreed with them, saying: "I have attained," without saying: "the sunnah." I said: There is no doubt that the correct position in its isnād is to affirm the presence of al-Balawī in it, due to the agreement of the five trustworthy narrators on this, as you have seen. As for the matn, the correct position is to affirm the wording "the sunnah," for several reasons: First, although the number of those negating and affirming is equal, the ruling is in favor of those affirming, according to the well-known principle: "The accepted addition of a trustworthy narrator." Second, all these affirmers are trustworthy narrators from the men of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim], unlike the first group, among whom is Ibn Lahīʿah, who is not among their narrators due to the well-known criticism against him. Third, there is another trustworthy narrator who affirmed this addition, namely Mūsá ibn ʿAlī ibn Rabāḥ, as in the first narration, and there was no disagreement about it, making it certainly the more correct version, even if the more preferred narration is that of the trustworthy narrators from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb, because its basis is on al-Balawī, whom you know is unknown and not relied upon. Due to this unknown status, Ibn Ḥazm criticized it in "al-Muḥallá" (2/92-93), as the first path was hidden from him, leading him to weaken the ḥadīth from its origin, which was an error. It appears he did not come across it, so it is not surprising from him, but rather surprising is what al-Dāraqutnī said in "al-ʿIlal," for after mentioning this authentic narration, he said: "He was followed by al-Mufaḍḍal ibn Faḍālah and Ibn Lahīʿah from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb from ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥakam al-Balawī from ʿAlī ibn Rabāḥ, and they said in it: 'I have attained the sunnah,' while ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith, Yaḥyá ibn Ayyūb, and al-Layth ibn Saʿd disagreed with them, saying: 'ʿUmar said: I have attained,' without saying: 'the sunnah,' and this is the preserved version."