then I returned to "Musnad Abī Yaʿlá" and found that its isnād does not differ from the previous one except in the narrator from (Sulaym al-Khashshāb). Abū Yaʿlá said (5/101/2711): Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyá narrated to us: Sulaym ibn Muslim al-Makkī narrated to us: al-Naḍr ibn ʿArabī narrated it. I said: It became clear to me that my doubt in al-Haythamī's authentication of the men—other than Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyá—was justified; for the isnād according to Abū Yaʿlá also revolves around Sulaym al-Khashshāb, who is not reliable. Al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mīzān": "Sulaym ibn Muslim al-Makkī al-Khashshāb al-Kātib... Ibn Maʿīn said: He is a wicked Jahmī. Al-Nasāʾī said: He is abandoned in ḥadīth. Aḥmad said: His ḥadīth is worth nothing." Then another doubt was cast into my mind, which is al-Haythamī's interpretation of Abū Yaʿlá's shaykh: (Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyá) as: (ibn Abī Samīnah), and I feared that (Yaḥyá) might be a distortion of (Baḥr), who is (al-Tamīmī al-Hujaymī) as previously mentioned, and I was led to this by several factors: Firstly: Al-Ṭabarānī's statement in "al-Muʿjamayn" after the ḥadīth: "No one narrated it from al-Naḍr ibn ʿArabī except Sulaym ibn Muslim, and Muḥammad ibn Baḥr al-Hujaymī was unique in narrating it." Secondly: Ibn Ḥibbān's statement in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" in the biography of (Muḥammad ibn Baḥr al-Baṣrī) (2/300): "A shaykh who resided in (Balahujaym) in Basra, Abū Yaʿlá al-Mawṣilī narrated from him. He narrates things from the weak that no one else narrates from them, to the extent that it occurs to the heart that he might have been fabricating them against them. I do not know whether the fault in those ḥadīths is from him or from them. Whichever of them it was, he is not reliable for evidence until his integrity is proven by considering his narrations from the trustworthy."