and I did not find it with this wording, so it appears that he narrated it by meaning. And Allāh knows best. Third Note: The ḥadīth has been attributed from the second path to Aḥmad in "Musnad" by more than one of the earlier and later scholars, and this is an error. The correct attribution is that it is from the additions of his son ʿAbdullāh in "al-Musnad" as previously mentioned in the referencing, and as in "Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd" (10/649/8160). A Lesson and Reflection: I was struck by the contradiction in the stance of the two Ḥalabī shaykhs, al-Ṣābūnī and al-Rifāʿī, regarding the ḥadīth of Ibn Kathīr, which he mentioned with the wording: "Amazement..." The first did not include it in his "Mukhtaṣar," unlike the latter who included it in his "Mukhtaṣar" (1/173), having stated in his introduction that he only includes authentic ḥadīths! Likewise, the first mentioned it, and they both violated their condition in dozens of ḥadīths as I have explained in "al-Ḍaʿīfah." Whoever wishes to review them may refer to the index of topics and benefits from the third and fourth volumes. This is a new example we mention here to confirm that Shaykh Nasīb, may Allāh have mercy on him, when he authenticates or weakens [a ḥadīth], he is like "a blind man groping in the dark," as narrated from ʿAlī. Otherwise, how can he authenticate a ḥadīth that has no basis in any of the books of sunnah with the mentioned wording?! On this occasion, I say: Our companion Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hādī, in his referencing of this ḥadīth of Ibn Kathīr (1/445 - Kuwait), said: "Aḥmad narrated it (!) vol. 4 p. 13 by its meaning, and it is a weak ḥadīth because it is from the path of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAyāsh al-Samʿī from Dalham ibn al-Aswad, and they are unknown." I say: His statement "by its meaning" is not correct, because "amazement" is not "laughter." They are two attributes of Allāh ﷿ according to the people of sunnah—and he is among them, all praise is due to Allāh—in contrast to the Ashʿarīs, who do not believe in them but interpret them as meaning satisfaction! Perhaps he did not notice the implication of this statement, and thus it is said: the implication of a doctrine is not itself a doctrine!