"Muslim said in his "Ṣaḥīḥ": Qutaybah narrated to us: Ismāʿīl ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us..." and he presented it with the wording of Ibn ʿUmar's ḥadīth. And I say: However, his combining the isnād of Muslim from Abū Hurayrah with the wording of Ibn ʿUmar is not commendable, as is evident! Because each of their ḥadīths contains what is not in the other, and therefore he should have pointed that out as Muslim did—may Allāh have mercy on him. And because of what I have clarified that Muslim did not present his wording, al-Haythamī included it in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (3/118), saying: "It was narrated by Aḥmad and Abū Yaʿlá, and the men of Aḥmad are trustworthy." And he mentioned before it: "I said: in the 'Ṣaḥīḥ' is a portion of it." He is thereby referring to the wording of Ibn ʿUmar's ḥadīth, which is an inadequate expression that does not clarify the matter for the reader as I have explained. Furthermore, his specification of Aḥmad by stating that his men are trustworthy is unfounded; because it implies that the men of Abū Yaʿlá are not, which is incorrect; for Aḥmad's shaykh: Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd—who is al-Ṭayālisī—and Abū Yaʿlá's shaykh: Yaḥyá ibn Ayyūb—who is al-Muqābirī—both said: Ismāʿīl narrated to us, and both are trustworthy from the men of Muslim, so the correct statement would be: "and their men are trustworthy." It would be preferable to add to that: "the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ," as is his habit, and the most accurate would be to say: "and their isnād is authentic according to the criteria of Muslim."