and such a triple contradiction in the isnād of a single narrator, from weakening to improving to authenticating, typically occurs only from a commentator who is not well-versed in this science, recently acquainted with it, or from more than one person who exchanged commentary on "al-Iḥsān," differing in their level of expertise in this science and its investigation. This is the most likely scenario, and as a result, these contradictory judgments appear in the edition of "al-Mawārid" in its ḥadīths. For example, see the ḥadīths numbered 96, 472, 880, and 2551. Among the oddities is that the ḥadīth numbered 472, narrated by ʿAyāsh, was confused, and therefore I included it in my book "Ḍaʿīf al-Mawārid," and its counterpart "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Mawārid" is under publication. May Allāh facilitate their release soon, if Allāh wills. As for the disagreement regarding the narrator, suffice it to mention what al-Dhahabī noted in his critique, including the statement of Abū Ḥātim, which concludes: "He is not strong, truthful, his ḥadīth is written, and he is close to Ibn Lahīʿah." Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (7/51 and 8/334). Among them is the previous statement of al-Dhahabī: "Muslim used him as evidence," and similarly in "Siyar" (7/334), but al-Ḥāfiẓ contradicted him, saying in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful but makes mistakes, Muslim included him in the supporting evidence." He said in "al-Tahdhīb," critiquing al-Mizzī who attributed it to Muslim: "I said: Muslim's ḥadīth is in the supporting evidence, not in the main sources." I said: The ḥadīth he refers to is the ḥadīth of ʿUqbah ibn ʿĀmir regarding vows: "To walk and to ride." It is produced in "al-Irwāʾ" (8/219) from the narration of the two Shaykhs from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb with his isnād from him. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAyāsh followed Saʿīd ibn Abī Ayyūb from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb with al-Bukhārī (1866), but is this among those