printed at that time, nor was it a manuscript in the Dār al-Kutub al-Ẓāhiriyyah in Damascus; and Allāh knows best. I relied then on al-Suyūṭī's silence about it, even though I knew that what he remains silent about often requires significant scrutiny. However, in such a case, neither I nor other moderate students can do anything but rely on the scholars unless their error becomes evident. This is the approach I have taken in all my writings, especially since the (exception) here has countless evidences in the book and the sunnah. And Allāh is the source of success. (Note): I mentioned earlier that Muslim and others reported the ḥadīth—without the exception—from Umm Salamah. Then I found a supporting narration from Ibn ʿAbbās, which al-Haythamī mentioned in "al-Majmaʿ" (5/76-77), saying: "It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlá and al-Ṭabarānī in the three [collections], and it includes Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyá ibn Abī Samīnah, who was deemed trustworthy by Abū Ḥātim, Ibn Ḥibbān, and others, and there is some criticism that does not harm, and the rest of its narrators are trustworthy!" This judgment puzzled me when I compared it with the isnād of al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Ṣaghīr" and my extraction of it in "al-Rawḍ al-Naḍīr" (420); for its isnād is very weak, yet it was included in his previous judgment. I thought there was certainly an error—at least in terms of generalization—so I saw that it was necessary to continue researching the isnād of Abū Yaʿlá and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" as well. This revealed to me errors by al-Haythamī and others among some contemporaries who have some involvement in this science. I found that the isnād of "al-Awsaṭ" is the same as the isnād of "al-Ṣaghīr." He said (4/204/3357): Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Firyābī narrated to us, saying: Muḥammad ibn Baḥr al-Tamīmī narrated to us, saying: Salīm ibn Muslim al-Khashshāb narrated to us, saying: al-Naḍr ibn ʿArabī narrated from ʿIkrimah from Ibn ʿAbbās