among the earlier and later scholars. As for the statement of al-Haythamī (3/38) - after he cited it in the wording of al-Bazzār, which is similar to what is mentioned above -: "It was narrated by al-Bazzār and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ,' and the men of al-Ṭabarānī are trustworthy." it is criticized from several aspects: First: he unconditionally declared this Muʾammal trustworthy, which is not good for the reason I mentioned earlier, and it is not his usual practice; he typically reports the disagreement about him, and if he mentions that someone declared him trustworthy, he follows it with saying: "and the majority weakened him," or he mentions those who disagreed, and you can find a summary of his statements - or some of his statements - on this in (the third volume) of the index by the esteemed brother Abū Hājar for 'Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid' (3/404-405). Second: his declaring the men of al-Ṭabarānī trustworthy without mentioning the men of al-Bazzār strongly suggests that the isnād of al-Bazzār does not deserve trust, but the reality is entirely different, and perhaps the reason is that al-Bazzār cited it with two isnāds from Ḥumayd; the first has issues as will be mentioned, unlike the other, and he did not notice this! Al-Bazzār said (1/392/832): Muḥammad (!) ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Mufaḍḍal (!) al-Ḥarrānī narrated to us: ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān narrated to us: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān narrated from Ḥumayd from Anas from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). And Aḥmad ibn Bakkār al-Bāhilī narrated to us: al-Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān narrated to us: Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl narrated... etc. I say: This second isnād's men are trustworthy, as for Ḥumayd and al-Muʿtamir; they are among the well-known men of the two Shaykhs. As for Aḥmad ibn Bakkār al-Bāhilī; Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in 'al-Thiqāt' (8/23), and said: "His ḥadīth is sound."