in his commentary on "al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah" (2/36/1588) and he approved it! Thirdly: the commentator on "Musnad Abī Yaʿlá," for he said (3/19): "Its isnād is very weak, al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmayr and his teacher are unknown, and among the narrators from Abū Ṭalḥah, there is no one named Shaddād as far as we know, so it is considered disconnected by us." Then he mentioned the statement of al-Haythamī, and he approved it as well! Fourthly: the commentator on "al-Maqṣad al-ʿAlī" (2/328), which is a compilation of notes, quoted the statement of al-Haythamī and the summary of the commentator on "Abī Yaʿlá"! I say: all of that is incorrect, for (al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmayr) is Abū ʿUmayr al-Baṣrī as previously mentioned, as al-Mizzī listed among the narrators from him (Zājir ibn al-Ṣalt). And Shaddād, who was not attributed in the narration of Abī Yaʿlá, is Ibn Saʿīd, attributed in the ḥadīth of the biography, and his kunyah is Abū Ṭalḥah al-Rāsibī as previously mentioned, and he is mentioned among the teachers of (al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmayr). And his statement in "Abī Yaʿlá": "from Abū Ṭalḥah," is likely one of the errors of al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmayr, and the correct version is (Shaddād Abū Ṭalḥah) by omitting the word (from) between the name and the kunyah. And the correct version appeared in the narration of Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (1535) from Zājir with it. And Allāh knows best. And this Zājir was mentioned by Ibn Ḥibbān in "al-Thiqāt" (4/269), and Abū Zurʿah said: "There is no harm in him." And Ibn Ḥibbān made a gross error regarding him, which I pointed out in my book "Taysīr al-Intifāʿ," may Allāh facilitate its completion for me by His grace and generosity.