"there is a consideration in its isnād." As mentioned in "al-Iṣābah" by Ibn Ḥajar, and therefore it was not appropriate when he presented the isnād of (Siyār) alongside (Jaʿfar), implying that their isnāds are the same, while in reality, they are not. That one is a musnad isnād, and this one is a mursal isnād, as I have clarified. From here, the error of the commentator on "Musnad Abī Yaʿlá" (12/238) becomes clear: "Its isnād is authentic to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khunbash, and it is mawqūf on him"! The correct view regarding the isnād of Abū al-Tayyāḥ is that it is mursal, as previously explained. His statement: "and it is mawqūf on him." is evidence of his inexperience in this knowledge, for the entire matter from beginning to end relates to the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), from the devil's attempt to burn him (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), and Allāh's diversion of that from him, after he experienced some fear, and he began to retreat, and his statement to Gabriel: "What should I say?" How can it be said about such a matter: "mawqūf"?!! And he was followed in this correction by the commentator on "al-Maqṣad al-ʿAlī" (4/338-339), who is among those without knowledge, rather he is often a mere follower! Therefore, I was pleased that he did not imitate him in the mawqūf! Likewise, the commentator on "Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn" (8/55) authenticated its isnād and further demonstrated inexperience by adding: "And al-Haythamī attributed it in "al-Majmaʿ" (10/127) to "al-Kabīr" as well, and authenticated it"! In reality, he did not authenticate it because he did not say as these modern scholars did: its isnād is authentic, but rather he said: "its men are the men of the authentic [collections]." And there is a vast difference between the two, as is not hidden from the people of knowledge, and I have pointed this out repeatedly. The ḥadīth has a supporting narration from the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd, so al-Ṭabarānī said: ḥadathanā Aḥmad ibn