he narrated it to us from ʿAlī ibn ʿĀṣim, from al-Muthanná ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ, from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb with some rearrangement, and his wording was: "Disbelief; disowning a lineage, even if distant, or claiming a lineage that is not known." I said: And this isnād is weak to ʿAmr due to the condition of al-Muthanná and ʿAlī ibn ʿĀṣim, but it does not harm the first route from ʿAmr, and for that reason, al-Mundhirī did not criticize it with them, and al-Haythamī followed him, saying (1/97): "It was narrated by Aḥmad, and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Ṣaghīr' and 'al-Awsaṭ'; and it is from the narration of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather." This indicates that it is a good narration, relied upon by the imams Aḥmad and others; as is explained in its proper place. I said: And from the ignorance of the three commentators on "al-Targhīb", and their lack of understanding in it: they did not notice what I pointed out regarding the actions of al-Mundhirī and al-Haythamī! What led me to this is that when they transmitted the aforementioned words of al-Haythamī, they omitted his statement: "and it is from the narration of ... " etc.; because they—due to their profound ignorance—did not understand its meaning! Therefore, they arrogantly criticized him and al-Mundhirī; following them with their statement—as if they had discovered a treasure!!—: "We said (!): In its isnād is al-Muthanná ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ; weak, confused at the end"! This is false regarding the narration of al-Ṭabarānī; because it is free from him; as you have seen, and due to this falsehood, they wronged the ḥadīth by beginning their discussion on it with the statement: "Weak"! No one before, as far as I know, has weakened it; for here is al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, from whose "Taqrīb" they quoted the weakening of al-Muthanná; he mentioned the ḥadīth in "al-Fatḥ" (12/42) from the narration of Aḥmad, and did not..