in this isnād; thus attributing the error to him is more appropriate than attributing it to Luwayn—whose name is Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān ibn Ḥabīb al-Miṣṣīṣī—because he is trustworthy, and it is even more appropriate not to attribute the error to Ibn Ḥibbān himself due to his known precision and accuracy. Therefore, the commentator on "al-Iḥsān" (4/219) erred when he attributed the mistake to him, saying: "It is most likely a slip of the pen by Ibn Ḥibbān, for Ḥammād ibn Zayd is not known to have narrated from al-Dustawāʾī..." I suspect that this error arose from another mistake of his, which is his statement after what has been mentioned: "Its isnād is authentic; Luwayn is the nickname of Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān ibn Ḥabīb al-Asadī al-Miṣṣīṣī, for whom Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasāʾī have narrated, and the rest of the men in the chain are men of the Ṣaḥīḥ." This confirms what I said; because al-Udhunī, the teacher of Ibn Ḥibbān, is unknown as mentioned earlier, let alone being among "the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ." Therefore, he was more deserving of being translated than his teacher "Luwayn," but he overlooked and forgot, and indeed, only Allāh does not err or forget. Ḥammād ibn Zayd was followed by ʿAbd al-Aʿlá ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlá with Ibn Khuzaymah in his "Ṣaḥīḥ" (1/146), and Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī with Ibn al-Jārūd as mentioned earlier, and al-Baghawī in "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (2/89/298), all of them said: Thana Hishām ibn Ḥassān from Abū Maʿshar with it. Hishām has followers from Abū Maʿshar, and he has followers from Ibrāhīm, who is Ibn Yazīd al-Nakhaʿī in "Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim" and "Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah" and others, and some of it is extracted in "Ṣaḥīḥ Abū Dāwūd" (398 and 399). In summary, the narration of Ibn Ḥibbān is defective due to contradiction, even though it is in the meaning of a ḥadīth