and Khālid—who is Ibn Yazīd al-Miṣrī—also followed him from Ibn Abī Hilāl with it. It was recorded by al-Nasāʾī (1/287) and in "al-Kubrā" (1/658). I said: It is authentic with these follow-ups, except that this al-Naḍr is unknown and not recognized, as al-Dhahabī said, and likewise al-ʿAsqalānī in "al-Taqrīb," even though he critiqued it in "al-Tahdhīb" with something of no consequence! However, the ḥadīth is authentic through the first path, and its text is more explicit in indicating the prohibition of sitting in this manner, with an explicitness that does not accept interpretation. Unlike this, it was interpreted by al-Ṭaḥāwī and others as sitting for defecation or urination! Its narration suffices as a refutation against it, and this text invalidates it. See "Aḥkām al-Janāʾiz" (p. 210). (Note): The esteemed readers will notice that I attributed the ḥadīth to Aḥmad through "Aṭrāf al-Musnad" by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī. This is contrary to my usual practice of attributing directly to the Musnad with mention of the volume and page from the old edition, or sometimes the number from the new edition edited by Aḥmad Shākir, may Allāh have mercy on him. So one might ask: what is the reason for this deviation? The answer: The ḥadīth is not in the printed "Musnad" in any of the narrations transmitted from "Aṭrāf," although it has been attributed to it by a number of scholars, including al-Majd Ibn Taymiyyah in "al-Muntaqá," al-Khaṭīb al-Tibrīzī in "al-Mishkāt" (1721), and al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Iṣābah," and also in "al-Fatḥ" (3/224-225) with the wording, and he said: "Its isnād is authentic," and with the other wording also found with al-Nasāʾī, yet he did not attribute it to it! Therefore, I commented on "al-Mishkāt" by saying: "I did not find it in the 'Musnad,' rather I am certain it is not there, as al-Haythamī did not include it in..