in "al-Thiqāt" (7/198) as mentioned by al-Bukhārī, meaning inverted! And he did not mention him among the ʿAbādilah as Ibn Abī Ḥātim did, even though he is the same person! The other issue: Yaḥyá ibn ʿImrān, who is the son of ʿUthmān ibn al-Arqam, as previously mentioned in one of Abū Nuʿaym's narrations. This is how the two shaykhs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim] recorded it in their books, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim said about his father: "An unknown Madinan shaykh." As for Ibn Ḥibbān, he also mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (9/253). Knowing this, it becomes clear to us the errors of some of the ḥadīth scholars: the first is al-Ḥākim's statement: "Authentic isnād"! And al-Dhahabī agreed with him! The second is al-Haythamī's statement after attributing it to Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī: "And the men of al-Ṭabarānī are trustworthy!" This is because there is no difference between the narration of al-Ṭabarānī and al-Ḥākim on one hand, and the narration of Aḥmad on the other, as all their narrations revolve around ʿAṭṭāf ibn Khālid, who has the weakness previously mentioned, and their shaykh is the same for all of them, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUthmān in Aḥmad's narration, and ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd Allāh in the inverted form for the others, and he is the same person as previously established, and he is unknown. Then ʿAṭṭāf became confused in his isnād, inserting between him and ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUthmān, Yaḥyá ibn ʿImrān, who is unknown, so there is no basis for authenticating his isnād, nor for differentiating between Aḥmad's and al-Ṭabarānī's isnād. The third is the confusion of the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar in "al-Taʿjīl" in the biography of this ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUthmān and the biography of his father ʿUthmān, attributing to ʿAṭṭāf a ḥadīth he did not narrate, as he said in it (p. 228):