as he claimed, the truth should have been that it was said he narrated it as a companion. It is strange that Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī drew the readers' attention in the footnote to this meaning, yet the commentator referred to did not notice it, or he did not accept it because he saw that the biographers had symbolized him as one of Muslim's narrators, like al-Ḥāfiẓ in his two books, and like Abū Naṣr al-Kalābādhī in "al-Jamʿ bayn Rijāl al-Ṣaḥīḥayn," who stated it without restriction that he was a companion. However, if this is true, then the one referred to should not have said what he said, because that does not apply to the ḥadīth he referred to, as I mentioned that it was narrated as a companion, and al-Kalābādhī also pointed it out and did not add more! So be aware, for it is one of the subtleties of this noble science. Despite the weakness mentioned, Muḥammad ibn Yazīd, who is the trustworthy al-Wāsiṭī, differed in his isnād, saying: from Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Khālid from the client of ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth from ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth... He mentioned the ḥadīth of recitation referred to earlier and added afterward: "He said: My mother or father took me to him, and he prayed for my provision." It was recorded by Abū Yaʿlá (1469). I said: al-Wāsiṭī added in the isnād the client of ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth, and his addition is accepted due to his trustworthiness and memory. It appears that this client is (Aṣbagh) mentioned in the isnād of Ibn Mājah's previous ḥadīth, and he is trustworthy, except that he had changed as mentioned in "al-Taqrīb." It is possible, in my opinion, that he is al-Walīd ibn Surayʿ, for he is also a client of ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth and shared with (Aṣbagh) in narrating the ḥadīth of recitation from his master ʿAmr with Muslim and others like Abū Yaʿlá (1457), and it is recorded in "al-Irwāʾ" (2/63). It is also possible, in my opinion, that he is (Aṣbagh) himself, and this is a nickname for him. And Allāh knows best