"there was also a similar incident for Ubayy ibn Kaʿb previously, so these are three occurrences." I said: In Ibn Kathīr's commentary, there is an indication of his strengthening of al-Nasāʾī's narration due to its continuity. The reasoning in the science of ḥadīth terminology is that if two trustworthy narrators differ in the isnād of a ḥadīth, with one sending it and the other connecting it, the preferred narration is the one that connects it. This is because it includes an addition, and the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted. This is the case here in the ḥadīth of al-Nasāʾī and the narration of Ibn Mardawayh; for the former, it is from the ḥadīth of Shuʿayb ibn Ḥarb, and for the latter, from the ḥadīth of Muslim ibn Ibrāhīm. Both are trustworthy, but al-Nasāʾī's book is well-served and its narration is well-attended to, unlike what we know of Ibn Mardawayh's book, and Allāh, the Exalted, knows best. Thirdly: His statement: "Then I did not find..." etc. I say: And what is behind this claim?! Are you among the preservers of ḥadīth, and you are in it like a novice, as is said in some regions, and as indicated by your many errors in your commentary on "al-Riyāḍ," and here are some of them, and the list goes on as they say. Some other examples have been presented, see "al-Ṣaḥīḥah" (no. 944) and the introduction to the second volume of the new edition, and number (3007)! *

- (When he would leave his house, he would say: In the name of Allāh, I have relied upon Allāh. O Allāh! We seek refuge in You from slipping (in another narration: causing to slip, or being caused to slip... with singular forms in all actions), or going astray, or oppressing or being oppressed, or acting ignorantly or being acted ignorantly upon.) It is from the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhā): narrated from her by al-Shaʿbī, and from him