Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Kūfī, whom I do not know, and the rest of its narrators are trustworthy." I said: And this negation from him is what prompted me to extract the ḥadīth here once again, after I had previously extracted it from a group of Companions, including Abū Juḥayfah, through three routes from him, including the route of Abū Rajāʾ, in the first volume of this series, number (343). In the new edition, I included the aforementioned negation without any commentary on it; because the sources that assisted me now in identifying Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Kūfī were not printed at that time, such as "Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān" and "Muʿjam al-Ṭabarānī al-Kabīr." I had quoted from al-Mundhirī that he said about one of the isnāds of al-Bazzār: "Its narrators are trustworthy." And when I reviewed its isnād through "Kashf al-Astār," I evaluated its isnād in the new edition, saying: "It is good, its narrators are trustworthy, the narrators of the two Shaykhs; except for the Shaykh of al-Bazzār: al-ʿAbbās ibn Jaʿfar - who is al-Baghdādī -; trustworthy." I was not aware that he was a corroborator for Muḥammad ibn Khālid due to the absence of "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr," and now by comparing his isnād with that of al-Bazzār, I have confirmed the corroboration; for the isnād of al-Bazzār is as follows: "ʿAbbās ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us: Isḥāq ibn Manṣūr narrated to us through it." This is a strong corroboration for Muḥammad ibn Khālid, indicating that he preserved the ḥadīth, and therefore, it was not appropriate for al-Haythamī to criticize it on this basis, even if it were assumed that he was unknown; as is known among those knowledgeable in this science. However, it seems that he missed this narration of al-Bazzār and did not recognize the corroboration, so he said what he said! This is indicated by his failure to attribute it, unlike al-Mundhirī, may Allāh have mercy on him. This is the reason for re-extracting the ḥadīth