as for his deviation in wording, it is that he omitted the word "not," thus affirming what the two trustworthy narrators denied in their narrations from Muʿādh ibn Muʿādh. And as for his deviation in the isnād, it is that he said: "Ashʿath ibn Sawwār," instead of: "Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd al-Malik"! If this Ḥabbāb were trustworthy, his statement would be considered anomalous, but I see it as objectionable because he is not known for narration, and he has no other ḥadīth in "al-Iḥsān" except this one and another that is corroborated, as I have clarified in "al-Taysīr." And Ibn Sawwār is weak. On this occasion, I must point out two important matters: one is that al-Haythamī in "al-Mawārid" mixed the first correct wording with this other objectionable one, and did not distinguish between them as he should have; for when he quoted this with its isnād—as previously indicated—he followed it with the isnād of al-Qawārīrī that I mentioned earlier, but he did not provide its correct wording, rather he said: "and mentioned something similar"! This gives the impression that it is similar in meaning, because that is what is known in the science of terminology, and even in language as well; for no one understands from his saying: "something similar"; that it means the opposite in meaning as is apparent, it is a gross error, and I do not know how it occurred?! It also gives another impression, which is that in the narration of (al-Qawārīrī): (al-Ashʿath ibn Sawwār); whereas it actually contains (al-Ashʿath) without attribution, and in the narration of some trustworthy narrators, it is (ibn ʿAbd al-Malik) as previously mentioned and will be mentioned