Al-Ṭabarānī then transmitted it as no. 925, by way of Ḍimām ibn Ismāʿīl, with the same chain, like the narration of Abū Yaʿlā.
- p. 443, Hadith 1828.
Add to the second line:
However, in his commentary al-Taysīr, he explicitly stated that its chain of transmission is weak. This is one of its useful points that is absent from his major commentary, Fayd al-Qadīr.
- p. 445, Hadith 1830.
Add to the fourth line from the bottom:
The annotator of Sharḥ al-Sunnah (9/6, Islamic Office edition) overlooked this objectionable feature when he cited the hadiths of Ibn Maẓʿūn and Jābir in support of the hadith. Neither of them mentions standing, as stated above. He should therefore have alerted the readers that their support is insufficient, and that the addition in the hadith is objectionable, since a weak narrator alone reported it. This is among the subtleties of this science that most of those engaged in it in the present age overlook; they do not notice such matters unless a scholar has preceded them in doing so.
- p. 449, Hadith 1833:
I then saw that one called ʿIzz al-Dīn Balīq had filled several pages of his book, which he entitled Scales of the Quran and Sunnah for Authentic, Weak, and Fabricated Hadiths (!) (pp. 71–77), claiming therein that the hadith conflicts with the Noble Quran wholly and in every detail (!) He based this on the verses that explicitly state that Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days, being ignorant—or feigning ignorance—of the fact that the seven days mentioned in the hadith are different from the six days mentioned in the verses, as I had explained in my commentary on al-Mishkāh. The source of his ignorance is that he interpreted turbah in the hadith as the earth—that is, the entire earth, including its mountains, trees, and so forth. This is false, as it contradicts the context of the hadith, as is evident to anyone of sound understanding. Rather, what is meant by turbah is soil, not