secondly: his statement: "with its chain" is a blatant lie and ignorance; for this would only be correct if Ibn Kathīr had provided his chain for the ḥadīth, saying: So-and-so narrated to me, who said: So-and-so narrated to me, and so on! He did not do this, nor is it his habit; rather, he attributed it to Abū Yaʿlá, saying: "And the ḥāfiẓ Abū Yaʿlá al-Mawṣilī said: So-and-so narrated to us... and so on," so he should have said—if he had knowledge—"Ibn Kathīr attributed it to Abū Yaʿlá with his chain..." or something similar. thirdly: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī al-ʿAmiyāʾ has no connection to narrating the ḥadīth; rather, it is his son Saʿīd, as previously mentioned. fourthly: this Saʿīd is weak in ḥadīth as mentioned before, so what is the wisdom in the doctor mentioning him without clarifying to his readers whether he is a Companion of the ḥadīth?! As is the customary practice among scholars; when they mention the ḥadīth, they attribute it to its Companion and not to one of its narrators below him! And if they mention someone like him, they do so to clarify his status in narration, and the doctor did not do this, so what is the secret then in mentioning him instead of the Companion?!! fifthly: his ignorance that the ḥadīth is in "Sunan Abū Dāwūd" and "Tārīkh al-Bukhārī" is due to his imitation of Ibn Kathīr, who attributed it to Abū Yaʿlá because it is lengthy with him, unlike Abū Dāwūd and al-Bukhārī. As for Shaykh al-Rifāʿī; he was deceived—as is his habit—by Ibn Kathīr's silence on it, as previously mentioned, so he thought it was authentic, and included it in his "Mukhtaṣar" (3/315), claiming its authenticity—may Allāh guide us and him! Then the shaykh passed away, so we ask Allāh to have mercy on him and forgive him. *

- (He disliked that food be taken from the top). It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (24/297/754) through the route of Ibrāhīm ibn