I said: I did not see it in "al-Nasāʾī's al-Ṣughrā," so perhaps it is in his "al-Kubrā," and there is a consideration regarding the reliability of al-Ṭabarānī's men, which will be explained. and likewise in his statement: "its isnād is ṣaḥīḥ," if its isnād is from the mentioned source, Abū Dāwūd criticized it after narrating it due to disconnection, saying: "Sālim did not hear from Shuraḥbīl, Shuraḥbīl died at (Ṣiffīn)." Then I saw it in "al-Nasāʾī's al-Kubrā" (3/170/4883) from this source. Al-Ḥāfiẓ reported in "al-Tahdhīb" his death at Ṣiffīn from Abū Dāwūd, but he mentioned before it from the author of "Tārīkh Ḥimṣ" that he died at (Salamiyyah) in the year (36). And from Yazīd ibn ʿAbd Rabbih: that he died in the year (40), and this is the most that was said about his death, and it is what Ibn al-Athīr relied on in "Usd al-Ghābah," as he mentioned nothing else. And if that is the case, and it is known that ʿAlī (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) died in the year (40) as well, it supports the disconnection that Abū Dāwūd mentioned, as al-Ḥāfiẓ also reported in the biography of Sālim ibn Abī al-Jaʿd from Abū Zurʿah that he said: "Sālim ibn Abī al-Jaʿd from ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī, is mursal." It is also supported by what he reported from Abū Ḥātim that he said: "Sālim did not meet Thawbān," even though Thawbān's death was delayed until the year (54). In conclusion, the isnād is disconnected, so the correction by al-Ḥāfiẓ is a lapse on his part, may Allāh pardon us and him. This, and al-Aʿmash followed Shuʿbah, so Aḥmad (4/235) said: Abū Muʿāwiyah narrated to us: al-Aʿmash narrated to us from ʿAmr ibn Murrah with it, except that he did not mention the third section of the ḥadīth of the chapter. Likewise, it was narrated by Ibn Mājah (2522) and al-Ṭaḥāwī (1/311) through another route from Abū Muʿāwiyah. And he was followed by Sulaym ibn ʿĀmir from Shuraḥbīl with the first section, and it has been previously extracted under number (1756) and narrated by al-Nasāʾī (4885)