among the peculiarities of al-Haythamī: he followed him in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (5/69-70), saying: "Aḥmad narrated it, and its men are trustworthy"! and he only mentioned the first part of it! Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir critiqued this, saying: "I do not know why he omitted the rest of it?! For I did not find it elsewhere." he missed that he was following al-Mundhirī in this! the complete ḥadīth is found in "Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd" by Ibn Kathīr (26/160/3095), and "Aṭrāf al-Musnad" by Ibn Ḥajar (4/28/5160). Thirdly: from the ignorance of the three commentators; their statement in the commentary on the ḥadīth in their edition of "al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb" (3/227): "Ḥasan by its corroborating reports, narrated by al-Ḥākim (4/146) and he authenticated it, and al-Dhahabī said: Ibn Wahb heard it from him, and it is very strange, and it was narrated by Aḥmad (2/178), and al-Haythamī said (5/69-70): Aḥmad narrated it, and its men are trustworthy"! I say: In this commentary are calamities and ignorances: the first: their statement: "Ḥasan by its corroborating reports" is a lie contrary to reality; for it has no corroborating reports, not even one, and for this reason, al-Dhahabī found it strange as mentioned earlier. the second: their statement: and al-Dhahabī said: "Ibn Wahb heard it from him, and it is very strange" is among the many evidences that they speak without knowledge, and transmit what they do not understand, as if they are more foreign than the non-Arabs; otherwise, who among the pure Arabs—let alone the Arabized non-Arabs like myself (!)—can understand the antecedent of the pronoun (from him)?! while it is very clear that they transmitted the isnād as I did earlier, and that it refers back to (ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith), and if