and in the other [route] is ʿAlī ibn Sulaymān al-Kalbī, whom I do not know, but the rest of their narrators are trustworthy!" And the three commentators followed him! I said: As for Layth, his description of him as a mudallis is one of his repeated errors in which he contradicted both the earlier and later scholars, as we have pointed out repeatedly. As for his ignorance of al-Kalbī, it is one of his oddities, for the man is known to be trustworthy as mentioned earlier. In fact, he is in his book "Tartīb Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān" as I believe; because he is in its original as previously mentioned. However, I did not assert this because the third volume, which contains the letter (ʿayn), I have not reviewed, and Allāh knows best. Furthermore, the first part of the ḥadīth has also been narrated by Ismāʿīl ibn Muslim from al-Ḥasan from Jundub in a marfūʿ manner. It was recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in "Muṣannaf" (10/26/18250), and al-Rūyānī in "Musnad" (2/143/662), and also by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (2/170/1660 and 171/1661). In summary, the ḥadīth with these routes and follow-ups is authentic as marfūʿ, and it is not harmed by those who stopped it, and for this reason, the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Fatḥ" remained silent about these routes. In fact, he stated that the mawqūf is in the ruling of marfūʿ, as he previously mentioned, so the narrations agreed, and the disagreement among them was resolved. All praise is due to Allāh, Lord of all the worlds. Two notes: 1- Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī commented on this narration of Ismāʿīl ibn Muslim with ʿAbd al-Razzāq by saying: "It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr", and its narrators are the narrators of "al-Ṣaḥīḥ". This was stated by al-Haythamī 297:7"!