his name was altered significantly, and in other sources as well! It appeared as "Siyār" with Abū Yaʿlá and al-Bayhaqī, as "Mubārak" in "Zawāʾid al-Bazzār," and as "Yasār" in "Kuná al-Dūlābī" (1/126)! What helped us identify him correctly was that it appeared accurately in the words of al-Bazzār mentioned after the ḥadīth: "Bishār alone narrated it, and he is weak." The ḥāfiẓ referred to this statement of al-Bazzār in "al-Lisān," but the weakening mentioned was omitted by the copyist or the printer. Ibn Abī Ḥātim reported (1/1/416) from Abū Zurʿah that he said about him: "A Basran shaykh, whose ḥadīth is rejected." Al-Dhahabī said similarly in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ." As for al-Haythamī's statement in "al-Majmaʿ" (8/22): "Narrated by Abū Yaʿlá and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ,' and the men of Abū Yaʿlá are trustworthy." Similarly, al-Mundhirī said in "al-Targhīb" (3/258): "Narrated by Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Bazzār, and Abū Yaʿlá with a good isnād, its narrators are trustworthy." I said: Perhaps the reason for this—meaning the absolute trustworthiness attributed to this Bishār—is reliance on the statement of Ibn ʿAdī: "I hope there is no harm in him" as in "al-Mīzān." However, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned that the beginning of Ibn ʿAdī's statement in his book "al-Kāmil" (Q 35/1) is: "His ḥadīth from Thābit and others is rejected and not followed, and his narrations are singular. I hope there is no harm in him, and he is better than Bishār ibn Qīrāṭ." I said: Ibn Qīrāṭ was accused of lying by Abū Zurʿah and weakened by others, so it seems that Ibn ʿAdī meant by saying there is no harm in him in terms of his honesty, meaning he does not deliberately lie. Otherwise, if he meant in terms of his memory as well, it would not align with his earlier statement: "His ḥadīth is rejected..." Ibn Ḥibbān said: "He narrates from Thābit things that are not from his ḥadīth."