Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayr narrated to us: ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Kindī narrated to us from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qurṭ with it. I said: The discussion regarding this isnād is similar to the discussion about the previous one; this is because its narrators are also narrators of al-Bukhārī, except for Aḥmad ibn al-Muʿallá al-Dimashqī, who is a trustworthy narrator mentioned in "al-Tahdhīb" like ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad. I only said "similar..." because Hishām ibn ʿAmmār, despite being among the narrators, rather the teachers of al-Bukhārī in "al-Ṣaḥīḥ," there is much criticism about him, as indicated by al-Dhahabī's statement in "al-Mughnī": "Trustworthy, narrates abundantly, has what is rejected, Abū Ḥātim said: Truthful but changed, and whenever he was prompted, he accepted." Abū Dāwūd said: "He narrated more than four hundred ḥadīths that have no basis." Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful, a reciter, he aged and became susceptible to prompting, so his earlier ḥadīth is more authentic." I say: Because of this susceptibility to prompting, I cannot judge his isnād as authentic, especially since he contradicted al-Haytham ibn Khārijah, the trustworthy, in his statement regarding the name of the Companion of the ḥadīth: "ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qurṭ," while al-Haytham said: "ʿĀʾidh ibn Qurṭ," which is correct. Perhaps Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, the ḥāfiẓ of al-Andalus, only encountered this path of Hishām; for he mentioned it in "al-Tamhīd" (24/81) from the path of Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayr from ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Sukūnī from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Qurṭ with it, and he said: "It is, to me, a rejected ḥadīth, and it is not preserved except from this aspect, and it is not strong." I said: There is no reason for this rejection in my view; unless it came to him through the path of Hishām, otherwise; the first path is free from it, unless he considered what was said about Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayr of..