he said the first in "Tahdhīb" (22/195): "And this narration is the correct one, if Allāh wills, and the narration of Qutaybah and those who followed him is an error. And Allāh knows best." al-ʿAsqalānī added, saying: "This is how Ibn Wahb narrated it from Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sālim from Yazīd (1) from ʿAmr." I said: This addition is very necessary; because without it, the aforementioned correction does not appear. How is it that Ibn Ṣāliḥ was contradicted by a group, one of whom, like Qutaybah, is more reliable than him, so what about them collectively?! However, this would be said if they were unanimous in contradicting him, but in reality, they themselves differed regarding al-Layth, so their contradiction to him does not remain strong. To clarify: we have shown that the second way agreed with the fourth way in naming the teacher of Ibn al-Hād as ʿAmr, while the third way omitted him, making it anomalous; because the addition of a reliable narrator is accepted, and they are Ibn Ṣāliḥ, Qutaybah, and Yūnus—who is Ibn Muḥammad al-Muʾaddib. After this omission, the conflict remained between the narration of Ibn Ṣāliḥ on one side—in which Ibn al-Hād said: from (ʿAmr Mawlá al-Muṭṭalib) from Quhayd—and the narration of Qutaybah and Yūnus in which Ibn al-Hād said: from (ʿAmr ibn Quhayd), thus confusing the narrator and the one narrated from, making them a single name on the other side, so it was necessary to weigh between them, so when