I say: Ahmad ibn Yunus was Ahmad ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn Yunus al-Yarbuʿi al-Kufi, a trustworthy hadith master and one of the narrators relied upon by the two Shaykhs. However, his counterpart, Muhammad ibn Ziyad al-Ziyadi, has some weakness. Al-Bukhari cited him as supporting evidence, and Ibn Hibban included him in al-Thiqat; but Ibn Mandah said: “Weak.”

I say: It is therefore possible that this addition came from him, being one of his unique reports in which Ahmad ibn Yunus did not share. Al-Tabarani may have conjoined his narration with that of al-Ziyadi because they shared the basic narration, not the addition as well. The chain to both of them is authentic, for he said (no. 413): “Zakariyya ibn Yahya al-Saji narrated to us: Muhammad ibn Ziyad al-Ziyadi narrated to us. And, through another chain, Abu Husayn al-Qadi narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Yunus narrated to us.” Both said: “Al-Fudayl ibn ʿIyad narrated to us from him.”

Abu Husayn al-Qadi was ʿAbd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn Yunus al-Yarbuʿi. He narrated from his father—as he does here—and from ʿAbthar ibn al-Qasim. Al-Hafiz al-Mizzi cited another hadith of his from his father, through a different chain of his, from Abu Dharr, and said: “We know of no hadith that he narrated from his father, or from anyone other than Abu Zubayd, except this; and we received it from him through a shorter chain.”

I say: This report should thus be added as an exception to his statement. He is trustworthy, as al-Nasaʾi and al-Hadrami stated, and Yahya ibn Zakariyya al-Saji was a well-known, trustworthy hadith master. All this leads me to attribute the error in that addition to al-Ziyadi, particularly since he differed from the aforementioned route from Shuʿbah in the wording: it says “ever,” whereas al-Ziyadi said, “in the morning,” as stated above. The difference between the two is obvious to anyone, Allah Most High willing.

Even if we assume that Ahmad ibn Yunus corroborated him in this, we would then say what we said concerning al-Farahidi’s transmission from Shuʿbah: it is anomalous, because it conflicts with al-Humaydi’s narration from al-Fudayl, and the corroboration