and ʿAbd al-Razzāq in "al-Muṣannaf" (11/341/20711), Ibn Abī Shaybah (15/8/18960, 18961, and 18980), Aḥmad (5/386-387, 403, 404, and 406), and al-Ḥākim (4/432-433) through various routes from him, but some named him Khālid ibn Khālid al-Yashkurī, who is trustworthy, as affirmed by Ibn Ḥibbān and al-ʿAjlī, and a group of trustworthy narrators reported from him. Therefore, the statement of the ḥāfiẓ that he is "acceptable" is not acceptable. Thus, when al-Ḥākim said after the ḥadīth, "Its isnād is ṣaḥīḥ," al-Dhahabī agreed with him. As for Shaykh al-Kashmīrī's statement in "al-Taṣrīḥ bimā Tawātara fī Nuzūl al-Masīḥ" after attributing it (p. 210) to Ibn Abī Shaybah and Ibn ʿAsākir: "Some of its wording coincides with what is with al-Bukhārī, so it is strong, inshāʾ Allāh taʿālā." This holds no weight with those knowledgeable in the methods of authentication and weakening, because the coincidence of some of its wording with what is with al-Bukhārī does not necessitate the strengthening of the entire ḥadīth. In fact, the opposite can often be true, which is known among them as the shādhdh or munkar ḥadīth. A reference to one of its phrases will be mentioned soon, and many examples of this have been presented in "al-Ḍaʿīfah." Those wishing to investigate can find them in the printed volumes, and in the twelfth volume, there are many other examples numbered (5513, 5514, 5527, 5542, 5543, 5544, 5547, 5552, 5553, 5554). Similarly, Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghumārī's statement in "ʿAqīdat Ahl al-Islām fī Nuzūl ʿĪsá (ʿalayhi al-salām)" (p. 102) and its transmission by Shaykh Abū Ghuddah in his commentary on "al-Taṣrīḥ": "It is a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth"! I say: This too holds no value because it is merely a claim that anyone, regardless of their ignorance of this noble science, can make. I have observed this Ghumārī to be overly liberal in authenticating what is not..