I said: This is a credible authentication based on a thorough examination of the man's ḥadīth, not on his unusual principle of authenticating the unknown, so take note. The isnād is sound and unblemished, which is why I said: Perhaps al-Haythamī did not notice it, and we did not see him specify it as I mentioned earlier. Then another thought occurred to me, which is that perhaps he did not come across the authentication by Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned; I have encountered many narrators unknown to al-Haythamī, even though they are documented in the book "Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān," to which he paid special attention, arranging it alphabetically to facilitate reference! This possibility was further strengthened for me when I found that he said in another ḥadīth by al-Bazzār (1445) mentioned in "al-Majmaʿ" (4/262): "Al-Bazzār narrated it from Aḥmad ibn Bakkār al-Bāhilī, and I did not know him, and the rest of the men are the men of (the Ṣaḥīḥ)." Al-Ḥāfiẓ critiqued him in "Mukhtaṣar al-Zawāʾid" and said (1/568): "I said: He is trustworthy, but al-Bazzār has clarified the defect in this isnād; he said: ʿUthmān ibn ʿUthmān made a mistake in it; it is only narrated by Hishām from his father from Ḥajjāj ibn Ḥajjāj from his father." I said: And this Ḥajjāj ibn Ḥajjāj is unknown, no one narrated from him except ʿUrwah, and some of the later scholars erred in authenticating his ḥadīth, and I have explained that in "Ḍaʿīf Abī Dāwūd" (351). The conclusion of this second aspect is that the isnād of al-Bazzār is sound, and al-Haythamī should not have remained silent about it. The third aspect: he did not point out the difference between the text of al-Ṭabarānī and the text of al-Bazzār, and he should have presented the text of the former due to the trustworthiness of its men according to him, rather than the latter, and Allāh is the guide