that al-Dāraqutnī's criticism of Fulaīḥ was due to his belief that the ḥadīth was authentic and firmly established, and his certainty, without hesitation, that Abū Umāmah would sometimes attribute it directly, as mentioned in the narration of "al-Muntaqá," which he also did not mention. All praise is due to Allāh, by whose grace righteous deeds are completed. (Clarifications) The first: Regarding the ḥadīth of Abū Umāmah from his father, Shaykh Abū al-Ṭayyib mentioned in his commentary on "al-Dāraqutnī" (3/100) that in its isnād according to al-Nasāʾī is ʿAbd al-Aʿlá ibn ʿĀmir... This is a pure error, for it is only through the path of Isḥāq ibn Rāshid as previously mentioned. And al-Mizzī did not mention anything else in "al-Tuḥfah." The second: Abū al-Ṭayyib, in the aforementioned commentary, attributed the earlier statement of the ḥāfiẓ: "If all the paths are preserved..." to al-Ṭabarānī! This is also an error, or poor memory, which is the more likely upon reflection. The third: The so-called scholar (Ḥassān ʿAbd al-Manān) in his commentary on Ibn al-Qayyim's book "Ighāthat al-Lahfān" (2/114-115) summarized the takhrīj of the ḥadīth by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, which he took from his printed book, into fourteen lines, summarizing all of it into four lines! Three of which are merely listing the numbers of the locations of the ḥadīth in the seven sources to which he attributed it!! Something that any writer could do! He followed it by saying: ".. with different isnāds and paths from Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl, sometimes sending it and sometimes connecting it to more than one person. It is predominantly authentic. See "Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr" (4/59)." And in its brevity, there are several ignorances: the first is his reference to "al-Talkhīṣ," implying that it was authenticated, or that authenticity could be derived from it, which is not the case, as I have previously conveyed to you his statement that supports the transmission, and his doubt that all the paths are preserved, and I have clarified what refutes it