I said: Aḥmad ibn Yūnus is the son of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yūnus al-Yarbūʿī al-Kūfī, a trustworthy memorizer from the narrators of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim]. However, his counterpart Muḥammad ibn Ziyād al-Ziyādī is weak. Al-Bukhārī used him as evidence, Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt," and Ibn Mandah said: "Weak." I said: It is possible that this addition is from him, from his unique narrations that Aḥmad ibn Yūnus did not share with him. Al-Ṭabarānī might have linked his narration to al-Ziyādī's due to their shared origin in the narration, not in the addition as well; and the chain to them is authentic. For he said (No. 413): Zakariyyā ibn Yaḥyā al-Sājī narrated to us: Muḥammad ibn Ziyād al-Ziyādī narrated to us. And Abū Ḥuṣayn the judge narrated to us: Aḥmad ibn Yūnus narrated to us, who said: Fuḍayl ibn ʿIyāḍ narrated it. Abū Ḥuṣayn the judge is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yūnus al-Yarbūʿī, and he narrates from his father—as here—and from ʿAbthar ibn al-Qāsim. Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī mentioned another ḥadīth from his father with another chain from Abū Dharr, and he said: "We do not know of any ḥadīth from his father or from anyone other than Abū Zubayd except this one, and we have received it with a high chain from him!" I said: This should be noted against him, and he is trustworthy as al-Nasāʾī and al-Ḥaḍramī said, and Yaḥyā ibn Zakariyyā al-Sājī is a well-known trustworthy memorizer. All this leads me to attribute the error in that addition to (al-Ziyādī), especially since it contradicts the previous path from Shuʿbah with the wording: "never," while al-Ziyādī said: "in the morning" as mentioned earlier, and the difference between them is clear to anyone, God willing. And if we assume that Aḥmad ibn Yūnus followed him in this, we then say what we said about al-Farāhīdī's narration from Shuʿbah: that it is anomalous; due to its contradiction with al-Ḥumaydī's narration from Fuḍayl, and the following..