two clarifications: the first: Shaykh Shuʿayb erred in his commentary on "Mushkil al-Āthār" (1/268) by saying about the ḥadīth: "Its isnād is authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs!" However, it is only according to the criteria of Muslim alone as previously mentioned; because Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlá is not among the narrators of al-Bukhārī. The other: his statement in his commentary on the biography of al-Nasāʾī from "Tahdhīb al-Kamāl" (2/328): "I must mention here a benefit, which might be hidden from many students of knowledge, which is that al-Mundhirī's statement in "Mukhtaṣar Sunan Abī Dāwūd": 'al-Nasāʾī reported it'; means 'al-Sunan' not 'al-Mujtabá' which was compiled by Ibn al-Sunnī, and likewise al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī in 'al-Aṭrāf' means: the original, not the abridged version"! I say: the first benefit is well-known, but as for the other, there is some consideration in its generalization; because al-Mizzī may attribute in "al-Aṭrāf" to "al-Sunan al-Ṣughrā" also "al-Mujtabá", as his esteemed editor ʿAbd al-Ṣamad Sharaf al-Dīn stated in "al-Muqaddimah" (1/18), although I have an observation on him that there is no room to mention now, and in his commentary on "Muqaddimah al-Mizzī" (1/3); he attributed a ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās to "Kitāb al-Qaṣāṣ" in two places (4/390 and 447), and this book is not among the books of "al-Sunan al-Kubrā", although it is present in it in "Kitāb al-Muḥārabah", and it contains other ḥadīths that are also in "al-Qaṣāṣ", which the aforementioned esteemed one mistakenly thought were additions to what is in "al-Kubrā"!