“Muslim states in his Sahih: ‘Qutaybah narrated to us: Isma‘il ibn Ja‘far narrated to us ...’” Then he related it using the wording of Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith.

I say: However, his combining Muslim’s chain of transmission from Abu Hurayrah with the wording of Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith found in Muslim is, as is evident, not commendable. Each of their two hadiths contains material not found in the other; therefore, he should have drawn attention to this, as Muslim himself did—may Allah have mercy on him.

Because of what I have explained—that Muslim did not cite its wording—al-Haythami included it in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (3/118), saying:

“Related by Ahmad and Abu Ya‘la, and Ahmad’s narrators are trustworthy.”

Before this, he had said:

“I say: A portion of it is found in the Sahih.”

By this, he was referring to the wording of Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith. This is an inadequate expression, which does not make the matter clear to the reader, as I have explained.

Moreover, his singling out Ahmad by stating that its narrators are trustworthy has no justification, since it suggests that Abu Ya‘la’s narrators are not likewise. This is mistaken, for Ahmad’s teacher, Sulayman ibn Dawud—namely, al-Tayalisi—and Abu Ya‘la’s teacher, Yahya ibn Ayyub—namely, al-Maqburi—both said, “Isma‘il narrated it to us,” and both are trustworthy narrators whose reports Muslim included. The correct wording would have been:

“The narrators of both are trustworthy.”

Preferably, he should have added:

“The narrators are those of the Sahih,” as was his customary practice. More accurately, he should have said:

“Both chains are authentic according to Muslim’s conditions.”