and regarding the ḥadīth, al-Haythamī said in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (2/251-252): "It was narrated by al-Bazzār, and in it is Yaḥyá ibn ʿUthmān al-Qurashī al-Baṣrī, whom I do not know. He narrated from Anas, and the rest of its narrators are the narrators of the authentic collections." I said: Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned Yaḥyá ibn ʿUthmān al-Qurashī in "al-Thiqāt," but he mentioned him in the third category." And I say: this is a strange confusion—as they say in Damascus—by al-Haythamī, for I have known from the isnād of the ḥadīth that it does not include Yaḥyá ibn ʿUthmān, because it is from the narration of Yaḥyá ibn [ʿAbbād Abū ʿAbbād: narrated to us by Muḥammad ibn] ʿUthmān [from Thābit] from Anas, as previously mentioned. This is how he himself presented it in the referenced section of "Kashf al-Astār," but when he transferred the ḥadīth to "al-Majmaʿ," everything I enclosed in brackets escaped his notice, resulting in the notion that something non-existent in the isnād, "Yaḥyá ibn ʿUthmān al-Qurashī al-Baṣrī," arose in his mind! This is the most astonishing omission I have encountered from such a ḥāfiẓ! And part of the complete (confusion!) is his description of Yaḥyá ibn ʿUthmān as "al-Qurashī al-Baṣrī," for this description was not mentioned in the isnād of al-Bazzār or others, but it is the description of "Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Sayyār al-Qurashī al-Baṣrī," who is from the same category as Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān al-Wāsiṭī, as I mentioned as a possibility earlier. It is as if this possibility revolved in al-Haythamī's mind, so he recorded it in his book as if it were a factual reality in this isnād, which is an illusion within an illusion. Glory be to Allāh. And among that is his statement after declaring that he did not know him: "I said: Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in 'al-Thiqāt'..." etc., for this does not align with what preceded it. I suspect that it was a correction by some scholars—perhaps Ibn Ḥajar—written in the margin, and the printer thought it was from the words of al-Haythamī, so he printed it without noticing its contradiction with
والحديث قال الهيثمي في " مجمع الزوائد " (٢ /٢٥١ - ٢٥٢) : " رواه البزار، وفيه يحيى بن عثمان القرشي البصري ولم أعرفه، روى عن أنس ن وبقية رجاله رجال الصحيح. قلت: ذكر ابن حبان في " الثقات " يحيى بن عثمان القرشي، ولكنه ذكره في الطبقة الثالثة ". وأقول: هذه لخبطة عجيبة - كما يقال في دمشق - من الهيثمي، فقد عرفت من إسناد الحديث أنه ليس فيه يحيى بن عثمان، لأنه من رواية يحيى بن [عباد أبو عباد: حدثنا محمد بن] عثمان [عن ثابت] عن أنس، كما تقدم. هكذا أورده هو نفسه في الموضع المشار إليه من " كشف الأستار "، فلما نقل الحديث إلى " المجمع " سقط من بصره كل ما حصرته بين الأقواس فنتج منه أن قام في ذهنه ما لا وجود له في الإسناد " يحيى بن عثمان القرشي البصري "! وهذا أعجب ما مر بي من السقط من مثل هذا الحافظ! وإن من تمام (اللخبطة!) وصفه ليحيى بن عثمان بـ " القرشي البصري "، فإن هذا الوصف لم يذكر في إسناد البزار أو غيره، وإنما هو وصف " محمد بن عثمان بن سيار القرشي البصري " الذي هو من طبقة محمد بن عثمان الواسطي كما ذكرته احتمالا آنفا. فكأنه دار في ذهن الهيثمي هذا الاحتمال، فسجله في كتابه على أنه حقيقة واقعة في هذا الإسناد، وهو خيال في خيال. وسبحان الله. ومن ذلك قوله بعد أن صرح بأنه لم يعرفه: " قلت: ذكره ابن حبان في " الثقات ".. " إلخ، فإن هذا لا يلتقي مع ما قبله. وأنا أظن أنه استدراك عليه من بعض العلماء - ولعلها ابن حجر - كتبه على الحاشية، فظن الطابع أنه من كلام الهيثمي فطبعه فيه غير ملاحظ تدافعه مع