and Shuʿbah also heard from him, as mentioned in "Tārīkh al-Bukhārī" (1/1/114). Ibn al-Jawzī and others considered him unknown, so al-Dhahabī included him in "al-Mīzān," saying: "Muḥammad ibn Shabīb, Ibn al-Jawzī said: unknown. Then he cited for him in "al-Wāhiyāt" a ḥadīth, which is: Hishām ibn Ḥassān from Muḥammad ibn Shabīb... (and he mentioned it). Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said: This is a rejected ḥadīth." I said: It is strange that al-Dhahabī did not realize that he is al-Zahrānī, who is mentioned by al-Bukhārī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and it might be said that he did realize this but considered him someone else. So I say: The duty required by this knowledge was to point this out, in the manner that al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar did, even though he did not hit the mark, as he commented on it in "al-Lisān" by saying: "And the mentioned Muḥammad ibn Shabīb is Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsá ibn Shabīb al-Nahdī, attributed to his grandfather, and he has a biography in (al-Kāmil)." I said: He also missed that he is al-Zahrānī, or at least to point out that he is someone else. Moreover, I did not find in the biography of those named (Muḥammad) in "al-Kāmil" by Ibn ʿAdī anyone with the grandfather's name "Shabīb al-Nahdī." And Allāh knows best. Al-Mundhirī said (4/227): "It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlá and its isnād is good, but there is something objectionable in its text, and it was narrated by al-Bazzār with the wording..." Al-Haythamī said (10/391): "It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlá from his shaykh Isḥāq, without specifying him, if it was Ibn Rāhwayh, then its men are the men of the ṣaḥīḥ, and if it was someone else, I do not know him." I said: Rather, it is definitely someone else, for he cited a ḥadīth for him before this, and another ḥadīth before them,