Second: His statement, “with his chain of transmission,” is both false and grossly ignorant. It would only be correct if Ibn Kathir had presented his own chain of transmission for the hadith, saying, “So-and-so narrated to me; he said: So-and-so narrated to me,” and so on. But he did not do this, nor was it his practice. Rather, he attributed it to Abu Yaʿla, saying, “Al-Hafiz Abu Yaʿla al-Mawsili said: He narrated to us ...,” and so on. Had he possessed knowledge, he ought to have said, “Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir attributed it to Abu Yaʿla with his chain of transmission,” or something similar.

Third: ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Abi al-ʿAmyaʾ has no connection with the transmission of this hadith; rather, it was his son Saʿid, as stated above.

Fourth: This Saʿid is a weak hadith narrator, as mentioned earlier. So what was the point of the doctor mentioning him without explaining to his readers whether he was the Companion who narrated the hadith?! The established practice of the scholars is that, when they cite a hadith, they attribute it to its Companion-narrator, not to one of the transmitters below him in the chain. If they mention someone such as this man, they do so only to clarify his standing as a transmitter. But the doctor did not do this—so what, then, was the secret behind mentioning him rather than the Companion?!!

Fifth: His ignorance that the hadith is found in Sunan Abu Dawud and al-Bukhari’s Tarikh, imitating Ibn Kathir. Ibn Kathir attributed it only to Abu Yaʿla because it is found there in a longer version than in Abu Dawud and al-Bukhari.

As for Shaykh al-Rifaʿi, he was, as usual, misled by Ibn Kathir’s silence regarding it, for the reason mentioned above. He therefore thought it authentic and included it in his Abridgement (3/315), asserting its authenticity—may Allah guide both us and him! Then the Shaykh died, and we ask Allah to have mercy on him and forgive him. *

3125—(He used to dislike taking food from the top.)

Al-Tabarani transmitted it in al-Muʿjam al-Kabir (24/297/754), through Ibrahim ibn