He’s صدوق مدلس in narrations thus we reject this report from him. ⬆️so as u see Imam Ahmed said he was Hasan Al-hadith Bukhari also was mentioning Ibn Ishaq As you can see here Ibn Maen weakend Ibn Ishaq like 4 times. Aba Abdillah said Ibn Ishaq was not a hujja Imam Al-Nasa’i said he was not strong Al-‘Ijli and Ibn Sa’d said that he is thiqa but on the bottom right Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal said that he does tadlees Ibn Al-Madini said he is thiqa, Abu Zur’ah said he is saduq, Muhammed Bin Yahya said he is Hasan Al-Hadith. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in his Thiqat (although he was lenient when making tawtheeq) So there is a difference of opinion on wether he even was trustworthy or not to begin with. But the muhaditeen all agree that he does tadlees Here you find the original quote from Imam Al-Nasa’i in his book Al-Du’afa Wal Matrukēn page 211 (where he says that Muhammed Bin Ishaq is not strong) Asma Al-Mudaliseen by Jalal Al-Deen al-Suyuti page 81-82. He mentions Ibn Ishaq in this book (a book for narrators who do tadlees) and Ibn Moen weakend him⬆️ Imam Al-Shafiee said he did tadlees. Here in Tahreer Taqreeb Al-Tahdeeb Volume 3 Pages 211 & 212 It mentions the name of Muhammed Bin Ishaq, and Ibn Hajar says that he does tadlees. And Shu’ayb Al-Arnaot agrees with him and says that he does tadlees, although he is thiqa Ibn Maen, Ahmed Bin Hanbal, Sufyan Bin ‘Uyaynah, Ibn Al-Madini say that he is thiqa But regardless if he is thiqa or not, we have proven him to be a mudalis. now when we go back to the original narration, we see that Muhammed Bin Ishaq who is a mudalis narrates with عن . How do we deal with a narration when a mudalis narrates with that (‘An)? Al-Albani writes that when a mudalis narrates with عن its not a hujja anymore. Cant be used as proof basically. So this narration (Sunan Ibn Majah 1944) is rejected. Here Shu’ayb Al-Arnaoot in his Tahqeeq of Sunan Ibn Majah weakens this report Here is tahqeeq Sunan Al-Darqutni where it says there is tadlees from Ibn Ishaq in it These are other scholars such as ibn hazm and al-hamdani etc… weakning the hadith and ibn hazm says it is a lie, As for the narration in musnad ahmed where ibn ishaaq doesn’t do tadlis, it was weakned by al-arna’ut because even if he didn’t do it he did tafarud and there is a lot of critism on this narrator also there are problems with the matn. Source: Musnad ahmed vol.43 pages 342-343 Al-Aloosi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: With regard to the additional material having been on a page that was kept with ‘Aa’ishah and was eaten by the tame sheep, it is a fabrication and lie of the heretics that this was lost as the result of being eaten by a tame sheep without being abrogated. This is what it says in al-Kashshaaf. End quote from Rooh al-Ma‘aani (11/140)