but Ibn ʿAdī concluded his biography by saying: "His ḥadīths are acceptable and possible, and perhaps he was affected by those who narrated from him." I said: How can this possibility be valid when those who narrated objectionable reports from him include ʿAmr ibn Abī Salamah, as previously mentioned by Ibn ʿAdī himself, and ʿAmr is a trustworthy and reliable memorizer? This very ḥadīth was also narrated from him by Abū Muṣʿab, as I have seen, and he is Aḥmad ibn Abī Bakr al-Zuhrī al-Madanī, the jurist, who is also trustworthy and among the narrators of the two Shaykhs. In summary, this Ibrāhīm is not free from weakness as long as trustworthy narrators have reported objectionable reports from him, and what supports this is that he was contradicted in his isnād. Imām al-Bukhārī said after him: "Al-Awaysī said to me: Sulaimān narrated to me from ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī ʿAtīq from Ibn Jadaʿah al-Makhzūmī from Ibn Shihāb from the Prophet ﷺ something similar." I said: So he made it mursal or muʿḍal and al-Bukhārī preferred it, saying afterwards: "It is more like mursal." And Sulaimān, who made it mursal, is Ibn Bilāl al-Madanī, a trustworthy narrator among the narrators of the two Shaykhs as well, so Ibrāhīm's contradiction of him in connecting the ḥadīth is rejected, as is clear to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the principles of this noble science. Moreover, it was narrated by a group other than Abū Muṣʿab, among them Yaʿqūb ibn Muḥammad al-Zuhrī: "Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Thābit narrated it to us." Al-Ḥākim recorded it (2/536) and said: "Its isnād is authentic!" Al-Dhahabī critiqued it, saying: "I said: Yaʿqūb is weak, and Ibrāhīm is the source of objectionable reports, this being the most objectionable."