"there is no harm" in it. And it does not harm, if Allāh wills, that others among the trustworthy contradicted him and stopped at it, because the elevation is an addition, and if it is from a trustworthy source, it is accepted, especially since the first path supports it. al-Bukhārī (10/317), Ibn Abī Shaybah (1/41-42), and Aḥmad (2/232) narrated from ʿUmārah ibn al-Qaʿqāʿ from Abū Zurʿah who said: "I entered with Abū Hurayrah the house of Marwān, and he called for water for ablution and performed ablution. When he washed his arms, he went beyond the elbows, and when he washed his feet, he went beyond the ankles to the shins. I said: What is this? He said: This is the extent of the adornment." The wording is from Ibn Abī Shaybah. Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Nājī, critiquing the first narration of Muslim which al-Mundhirī mentioned in "al-Targhīb," said: "This narration indicates that its end is also not elevated." I said: He means his statement: "the extent of the adornment...". And you have known the answer to this criticism earlier, and I strongly suspect that al-Nājī did not come across the aforementioned follow-up of Khalaf with Abū ʿAwānah nor this other correct path, otherwise he would not have said that. Moreover, it has occurred to me that this narration, even if it appears to be stopped, is in reality elevated, because his statement: "this is the extent of the adornment" strongly indicates that the addressed person knows there is an elevated ḥadīth with the wording "the extent of the adornment is the extent of ablution," as explicitly stated in the second path. The narrator sufficed with this without explicitly elevating it to the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), so reflect. In summary: the ḥadīth is elevated from both paths, and the stopped does not undermine it because it is in the ruling of being elevated, as previously explained