I said: This is an authentic isnād, all its narrators are trustworthy, and it serves as strong evidence that the prohibition is specifically against hastening in walking; because the narrator of the ḥadīth is more knowledgeable about what he narrates than others, especially if he is the one being addressed by the prohibition. So take it, for it is rare and you may not find it in the extensive books of ḥadīth and takhrīj, and success is from Allāh. End of ḥadīth (266): (Note): Among the peculiarities of successive errors and the contradiction of sound scholarly criticism, and the succession of learned ḥadīth scholars in strengthening this ḥadīth, is what occurred with those who came after al-Mubārakfūrī among the compilers, and they are a group: the first - al-Mubārakfūrī, and the reason for his error has been previously explained in detail. The second - Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir (may Allāh have mercy on him) in his commentary on "al-Musnad" (2/332), and I am inclined to think that the reason for his error - along with the occurrence of the attribution (al-Qurashī) in "al-Musnad" - is that the ḥadīth appeared between two ḥadīths of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq, from al-Nuʿmān ibn Saʿd, from ʿAlī, and in both he is certainly al-Wāsiṭī, so his sight or imagination shifted to it, and he did not notice the attribution (al-Qurashī) in our ḥadīth. Such a shift is not a fault; because no writer or author is free from it, but the fault lies with those who came after him and imitated him, ignoring the mentioned attribution, or accusing its narrator without evidence or proof, and they are: the third - Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, and the remaining six who participated with him in the verification (!) in the commentary on "al-Musnad" as well (2/438 - published by the institution), for he - or they all - dared to accuse the narrators of error merely by assertion, saying: "And the statement of one of the narrators in this ḥadīth regarding the lineage of (ʿAbd al-Raḥmān): 'al-Qurashī'"