I said: The aforementioned disagreement was attributed to Ibn Ḥibbān, and his memory was criticized, but he is innocent of this. It is actually from (al-Ḥabāb ibn Muḥammad), the father of (Abū Khalīfah), as previously clarified. What led to this false claim was his alteration of the isnād without any basis from a manuscript or narration, and without making the slightest indication of this in his commentary!! May Allāh guide him. This alteration and change in the isnād has transferred to another book, namely "al-Mawārid" (1/168-169, Institution Edition) as well. I suspect that the perpetrator is the same, or he is a blind imitator! Here, he clarified what was in the original "al-Mawārid," and although he asserted it was an error—and based on that, he corrected the isnād of "al-Mawārid" according to his alleged correction in "al-Iḥsān"!—despite all this, he mentioned his basis for the aforementioned correction, saying after mentioning the original isnād: "And it is an error, and the correction is from 'Sunan Abī Dāwūd,' see the extraction of the ḥadīth and the commentary on it in (al-Iḥsān)!" Thus he said! He did not clarify the basis of the correction he claimed; because if he did, his ignorance of this knowledge would be exposed and revealed. This is because he assumed from Abū Dāwūd's mere narration of the ḥadīth from his teacher (ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Maʿādh), that he was also the teacher of (Abū Khalīfah), and this is not necessarily the case, obviously. We say this assuming he was one of his teachers, because it is possible that it was someone else who actually narrated it from Maʿādh ibn Maʿādh, such as (ʿUbayd Allāh al-Qawārīrī), who is in the second isnād of "al-Mawārid" as previously mentioned, or (al-Qāsim ibn Sallām), who is the narrator of this ḥadīth from Maʿādh according to al-Baghawī in "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (2/429/520), where it states: "from Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd al-Malik." This is an important benefit, and it is also with al-Tirmidhī (600) through another route from him. This further confirms the other error of al-Haythamī as previously indicated, and it indicts the aforementioned commentator with ignorance, foolishness, and negligence regarding the consequences that resulted from his correction