and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" and said (2/269): "He narrates from Ibn al-Munkadir, Nāfiʿ, and al-Zuhrī. He was among those who narrated fabricated reports from reliable narrators. It is not permissible to mention him in books except to criticize him." Al-Suyūṭī did well when he included the ḥadīth in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" from the narration of al-Ṭabarānī from Jābir and al-Bazzār from ʿĀʾishah. Al-Munāwī was correct in criticizing the isnād of al-Bazzār with that liar. He erred in criticizing the ḥadīth of Jābir by saying in "al-Fayḍ": "Ismāʿīl... al-Azdī said: his ḥadīth is rejected, although Ibn Ḥibbān authenticated him"! I suspect that if he had reviewed the biography of Ismāʿīl in "al-Tahdhīb" and the many who narrated from him, among them some of the ḥuffāẓ, and the authentication of the ḥāfiẓ for him, and his rejection of al-Azdī's aforementioned statement—if he had reviewed all of this, he would not have fallen into this error which, it seems, Shaykh al-Ghumārī was deceived by; thus he did not include the ḥadīth in what he called "al-Kanz al-Thamīn," which contains many weak ḥadīths, and some of them fabricated, as I have clarified many of them in "al-Ḍaʿīfah" and elsewhere. And all of this is ignored by one who claims to be his student, who is nicknamed (al-Saqqāf), who does not mention a single doctrinal, ḥadīth, or jurisprudential error of his, despite their abundance! Meanwhile, the fair-minded see that he has devoted himself to refuting al-Albānī with slander and falsehood, which made them feel that there is something hidden behind the scenes. May Allāh guide him if he is misguided and seeks guidance from Allāh, and may Allāh break his back if he is a hypocrite intending to plot and deceive against Islam and Muslims; and Allāh has spoken the truth: "They plotted and Allāh plotted, and Allāh is the best of plotters." Then it seems that al-Munāwī later realized his mistake; so he said in "al-Taysīr," which he authored after "al-Fayḍ": "Its isnād is ḥasan." And Allāh knows best