it is as if Zuhayr, whom the people of al-Shām narrate from, is another person, and Abū Ḥātim said: "He narrated in al-Shām from his memory, so his mistakes were numerous." I said: This is from the narration of al-Tanīsī from him, and he is from al-Shām, and therefore, the isnād in my view is weak. Al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (4/272): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ' and in it is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān from Anas and from him Zuhayr ibn Muḥammad, and I did not know him unless he is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, in which case the isnād is disconnected, and if it is someone else, I did not know him. And Allāh knows best." I said: The narration of al-Ḥākim clarified that it is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd, then he mentioned that he is ibn ʿUqbah, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim translated him (2/2/233) and said: "He is considered among the people of Medina, narrated from Anas ibn Mālik, narrated from him ʿAmr ibn Yaḥyá, and I asked my father about him? He said: There is no harm in his ḥadīth." Ibn Ḥibbān included him in "al-Thiqāt" (1/125). (Note) I mentioned earlier that al-Dhahabī agreed with al-Ḥākim on his authentication, which is what appeared in the printed version of "al-Talkhīṣ." Then I saw al-Munāwī saying in "al-Fayḍ": "Al-Ḥākim said: Authentic, and al-Dhahabī followed up by saying Zuhayr was deemed reliable, but he has oddities." End. Ibn Ḥajar said: "Its isnād is weak." Al-Mundhirī in "al-Targhīb" (3/68) reported al-Ḥākim's authentication of it, and he also agreed! Likewise, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī did in "Takhrīj al-Iḥyāʾ" (4/99), but he mentioned that Ibn al-Jawzī narrated it in "al-ʿIlal" from the ḥadīth of Anas with a weak isnād, and it is with al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ." Al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (4/252):