that both of them reported it through the route of Zabān, and its chain of transmission is very weak, concluded. If al-Ṭabarānī reported it through a different route—and I do not think so—especially the narration (sic) of Ibn Lahīʿah from Zabān from Sahl, otherwise; what the author and al-Haythamī said is refuted; for (Zabān) and his teacher (Sahl) are among the narrators disputed over, whom the author singled out at the end of this book, saying... I said: Then he went on at length quoting the statements of the ḥadīth scholars regarding (Zabān), both in terms of his reliability and weakness, to no avail, over about half a page, because even conceding his weakness, I have already provided the answer to it, so I will not repeat it, but it is necessary to clarify what is hastily issued from him: Firstly: that he did not return to the "Musnad of Aḥmad" and "Muʿjam al-Ṭabarānī" to realize that there is no difference between his narration and that of Aḥmad! Secondly: what he attributed to al-Haythamī in "al-Majmaʿ" I did not see, and it contradicts what I previously quoted from him, and I fear that his sight shifted while writing to another ḥadīth, as he himself has recounted similar occurrences repeatedly from al-Mundhirī. Thirdly: his statement, "and I do not think so," confirms what I mentioned in (Firstly), otherwise; he would have known that al-Ṭabarānī and likewise Aḥmad narrated it through a route other than (Zabān). Fourthly: what he attributed to Ibn Ḥajar that he ascribed it to Abū Yaʿlá; is not in the printed version of "al-Iṣābah," so if it is in some copies of it; it is an error by its author, otherwise; it is one of al-Nājī's errors; for the author did not mention it in the "al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah" in its abridged form, nor in the "Musnad." Fifthly: as a result of not returning to the "Musnad" and "al-Ṭabarānī": he agreed with his teacher's statement: "and its chain of transmission is very weak," which necessitates weakening the ḥadīth, and thus he based his subsequent statement on it (37-1/2):