from "his Musnad," which confused me, so I continued my research to uncover the truth. I found that al-Ḥākim had extracted it in a different place than the one where I had attributed Ismāʿīl's narration to him, and through a different route: he extracted it (1/55) through the route of Yaʿqūb ibn Ibrāhīm. This is a strong corroboration; if it were confirmed, the isnād would be authentic according to their criteria, as al-Ḥākim said. However, I have some reservations about it, as he narrated it from his teacher al-Qaṭīʿī: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad told us: my father told me: Yaʿqūb ibn Ibrāhīm told us... and so on. The apparent isnād suggests that the ḥadīth is in "Musnad Aḥmad" because it is from al-Qaṭīʿī's narration, as is well-known. However, it is not in it, as I am inclined to believe after further research and using all possible means, both old and new: Firstly, al-Haythamī did not mention it in "Majmaʿ," although he mentioned the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd and the ḥadīth of Abū Umāmah referred to earlier. Secondly, the ḥāfiẓ himself did not include it in "Aṭrāf al-Musnad," as one of my brothers informed me. Thirdly, our brother Ḥamdī ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Salafī also did not mention it in "Fahāris al-Musnad." Among other known means today. From this, it results that attributing it to Aḥmad is an error, as it implies it is in "al-Musnad," and it is not. The matter does not exceed the possibility of one of three scenarios: first, that the ḥadīth is from Aḥmad's narration outside "al-Musnad," such as "al-Zuhd" and "Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah," as both are from al-Qaṭīʿī's narration. Second, it could be one of al-Qaṭīʿī's errors, as there is criticism regarding him due to his confusion in his later years. Third, it could be one of al-Ḥākim's mistakes regarding al-Qaṭīʿī. And Allāh knows best. *