Zayd ibn Judʿān is weak, and there is a difference of opinion regarding the criticism of Yūsuf ibn Mihrān. And Allāh knows best." This is as mentioned in "al-Fatāwá" (pp. 120-121). I say: There is a consideration in these two transmissions, explained as follows: Firstly, the weakness of the isnād of the ḥadīth does not necessarily imply the weakness of its text, due to the supporting evidence I referred to above, which will be detailed, and they are free from severe weakness; rather, some of their isnāds are authentic as will be shown. Secondly, al-Nawawī was very limited in attributing it solely to Abū Yaʿlá, while it was also narrated by those of a higher rank than him, like Ibn Abī Shaybah and Aḥmad. Thirdly, al-Haythamī's specification of mentioning Aḥmad by stating that his narrators are the narrators of the authentic [collections], while the narrators of Abū Yaʿlá are likewise. Fourthly, his statement: "Its narrators are the narrators of the authentic [collections]" is an error, or he assumed that this (Yūsuf ibn Mihrān) is (Yūsuf ibn Māhak ibn Mihrān) who is mentioned in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs," which is the opinion of some, but the correct view is that he is not, as confirmed by al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī, al-Dhahabī, and al-ʿAsqalānī, and he was deemed trustworthy by Abū Zurʿah and others. Fifthly, including al-Bazzār with Aḥmad and Abū Yaʿlá suggests that he has it from this route, which is not the case; rather, he narrated it from the following route, and this was not noticed by the commentator or commentators on "Musnad Abī Yaʿlá," being misled by the forthcoming comment of Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī! The second route: from Muḥammad ibn ʿAwn al-Khurāsānī from ʿIkrimah from Ibn ʿAbbās. It was extracted by al-Bazzār (3/109/2359) and Ibn ʿAsākir (18/93). I say: This al-Khurāsānī is abandoned in ḥadīth, so there is a concern that he may have erred in his isnād