the two Shaykhs, and Yazīd ibn Hārūn is not among their teachers, and this is from his condition that we have known through investigation: that his isnād ends from his teacher and those above him to a teacher of the two Shaykhs, and those above him are also from their men, although he has often neglected this as is known to experts in this field. Moreover, what I mentioned about the condition is a specific convention of his, which he agreed upon; otherwise, it only holds when all the men of the isnād are according to the condition of the two Shaykhs, and this is not possible unless the musnad is from their generation as is apparent to scholars. Likewise, we have seen him—in much of what he authenticated according to their condition or one of them—the isnād to their teacher is not authentic!! Then the ḥadīth—without (the phrase of the companion)—was narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in "al-Muṣannaf" (11/297/20585) from Maʿmar from ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī ... he elevated the ḥadīth and mentioned it similarly. And this ʿAṭāʾ is a weak Successor, al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "Truthful but makes many mistakes, sends [ḥadīths], and conceals [his sources]." (Note): I have known that the ḥadīth of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām is mawqūf according to al-Ḥākim, and al-Mundhirī attributed it to him without saying: "mawqūf"; so I added it to him in my book "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb" (1/203/324); for he said: "Aḥmad narrated it from the narration of Ibn Lahīʿah, and al-Ḥākim narrated it from the ḥadīth of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām without saying: 'Companion of the mosque...' to the end, and he said: 'Authentic according to their condition'!" Then the three commentators came who corrupted the book with their numerous crude comments! They mixed it in a strange confusion that indicates to the researcher that they have not even smelled the fragrance of this knowledge; let alone being experts in it, and we have previously mentioned examples of their confusions, including