as for the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, his statements about this ḥadīth are astonishingly contradictory, as he sometimes strengthens it and sometimes weakens it in the same place! He quoted in "al-Fatḥ" (9/594-595) from Imām al-Rāfiʿī that the preferred practice for the ʿaqīqah is that it should not be delayed beyond puberty, otherwise it is no longer obligatory for the one who intended to perform it. However, if one wishes to perform it for oneself, they may do so. The ḥāfiẓ then commented: "It seems he indicated that the ḥadīth which states: 'that the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) performed ʿaqīqah for himself after prophethood' is not authentic, and indeed it is not." He then cited it from al-Bazzār's weak narration, and then said: "Abū al-Shaykh also narrated it through two other chains: one from Ismāʿīl ibn Muslim from Qatādah from Anas. Ismāʿīl is also weak, and he may have taken it from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥarrar. The second is from Abū Bakr al-Mustamlī from al-Haytham ibn Jamīl... and al-Haytham is trustworthy, and ʿAbd Allāh is among al-Bukhārī's narrators. So the ḥadīth has a strong isnād, and it was also narrated by Ibn Aʿīn... and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ"... If it weren't for the criticism of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muthanná, this ḥadīth would be authentic." He then mentioned the scholars' opinions on those who authenticated and weakened him, and then said: "This is from the shaykhs whose solitary narration is not a proof." I say: This generalization is questionable, as is evident from our previous explanation of al-Bukhārī's distinction between ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muthanná's narration from his uncle, which he used as evidence, and his narration from others, which he considered, as we learned from the ḥāfiẓ's own words in "al-Muqaddimah." Perhaps he did not recall this when he wrote this generalization. Moreover, Ibn al-Muthanná did not narrate the ḥadīth alone, as evidenced by Qatādah's corroboration with Ismāʿīl ibn Muslim - who is al-Makkī al-Baṣrī - and although he is weak, he was not accused of fabrication; rather, some stated he made mistakes. Abū Ḥātim said about him - and he is considered among the strict critics -: "He is not abandoned, his ḥadīth is written." Meaning for consideration and citation, and that is why Ibn Saʿd said: "He had opinions and fatwás, and insight and memorization of ḥadīth, so I used to write from him due to his intelligence." I say: Thus, one can use his ḥadīth for support, thereby strengthening the ḥadīth. As for the ḥāfiẓ's previous statement about him: "He may have taken it from Ibn al-Muḥarrar," it is refuted by the fact that no one accused him of stealing ḥadīth despite the abundance of criticism against him. And Allāh knows best. From what has been mentioned, it becomes clear that the other aspect from Qatādah, which al-Bayhaqī referred to in his previous statement quoting the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Talkhīṣ," who said about it: "I did not see it elevated," was later seen by him and mentioned in "al-Fatḥ," which is this narration of Ismāʿīl. And with Allāh is success. If what has been previously clarified is understood, it becomes apparent that al-Nawawī's statement in "al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab" (8/431-432): "This is a false ḥadīth," was made without considering the second chain and the condition of its narrator Ibn al-Muthanná in the narration, nor did he note the aforementioned corroboration. And Allāh knows best. Al-Haythamī said in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid":