because of the frequency with which I have seen in Shaykh Shuʿayb's annotations things contrary to what is attributed to him—and this has been previously noted in some earlier observations—including this ḥadīth, where the Shaykh commented on it in "Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān" by saying (8/377), "Its isnād is authentic, its men are trustworthy..." Then he cited it with the narration of Muslim and Ibn Khuzaymah, and the authentication of al-Ḥākim and the agreement of al-Dhahabī. So I do not know whether the Shaykh retracted his authentication to align with his student, or if this student attributed to his Shaykh what he did not say to strengthen his position?! This is something that future days will reveal, if Allāh wills (1). And among the strange contradictions and apparent errors—which only a beginner in this field would make—is attributing Shaykh Shuʿayb to the mursal ḥadīth of Ibn Sīrīn as a narration of al-Bukhārī from Abū Juḥayfah! Al-Dhahabī mentioned this mursal in "al-Siyar" (1/543), and the Shaykh said in his takhrīj: "It was narrated by Aḥmad (6/444) ... and Ibn Saʿd (4/1/61) in detail, and al-Bukhārī similarly in 'al-Ṣawm'... from Abū Juḥayfah...", and he presented its detailed wording, which contains not a single word from the mursal! On the other hand, he implied that the ḥadīth with Aḥmad is also mursal as it is with Ibn Saʿd, while it is actually musnad from Abū Hurayrah! Such weak takhrīj makes me believe that many of the attributions we see to Shaykh Shuʿayb are not his, but rather the work of some who train under him and have no knowledge, like this Ḥassān, and similarly the commentator on "al-Iḥsān". In his annotations on it, there are many errors—which I discovered during my verification of the book "Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān", which is nearing completion, if Allāh wills—I find it unlikely that they are from Shaykh Shuʿayb, as they are obvious errors! Then I saw the ḥadīth in "Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah" (3/45) from the narration of Sufyān from