then one of my brothers, may Allāh reward him with good, alerted me that in "Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn" (5/264): (Mūsá ibn Rabīʿah ibn Mūsá ibn Suwayd al-Jumaḥī) it is (ibn Mūsá) instead of (ʿan Mūsá), and similarly in "Tahdhīb al-Mizzī" and the printed "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ" as well, so what is in the photographed copy is an error. I should have noticed it from al-Ṭabarānī's statement following it: "No one narrated it from al-Walīd except Mūsá ibn Rabīʿah." For it is clear that there is no intermediary between them, but this is how it was estimated, and it was previously mentioned that he is trustworthy. I still need to consider the validity of al-Haythamī's general statement: "The rest of its narrators are trustworthy," because (Aḥmad ibn Rushdīn), who is Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥajjāj ibn Rushdīn al-Miṣrī, al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mughnī": "Ibn ʿAdī said: His ḥadīth is written despite his weakness." I said: And this was mentioned by Ibn ʿAdī at the end of his biography in "al-Kāmil" (1/198) and he narrated at the beginning of it a story in which Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ said about him: "A liar!" And he did not add more than this. So al-Dhahabī's statement at the beginning of his biography in "al-Mīzān": "Ibn ʿAdī said: They accused him of lying!" is not without issue, especially since al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Lisān": "And Ibn Rushdīn was a narrator of many ḥadīths, and Maslamah said in "al-Ṣilah": More than one narrated from him, and he was trustworthy and knowledgeable in ḥadīth." I said: Perhaps his weakness and what was criticized about him came from the abundance of his ḥadīths, and al-Nasāʾī indicated his few mistakes by saying: "If he retracted the ḥadīth of the cave from Bukayr, I would have narrated from him." It appears that he did not deliberately lie, but rather made mistakes as others do, which is forgivable given the abundance of what he narrated. And Allāh knows best