(1/329) and by Ibn Mājah (3572) through the route of Abū al-Aḥwaṣ, and by Ibn Ḥibbān (1447) and Aḥmad (5/382 and 400-401) from Sufyān from Abū Isḥāq from Muslim ibn Nudhār from Ḥudhayfah with it. Zayd ibn Abī Unaysah also followed them according to Ibn Ḥibbān (1448), and al-Tirmidhī said: "A ḥadīth that is ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ, narrated by al-Thawrī and Shuʿbah from Abū Isḥāq." I said: It seems that by their narration of the ḥadīth from him, they indicate that it is free from defects due to the confusion of Abū Isḥāq—who is ʿAmr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī—as they narrated from him before his confusion, as they explicitly stated, and I recall from al-Ḥāfiẓ that al-Aʿmash was likewise, for he was earlier than them, he died in the year (148), and Shuʿbah died in the year (160) and Sufyān a year after him, rather he is one of their shaykhs, and Muslim narrated from him from al-Sabīʿī as in "Tahdhīb al-Mizzī." It remains that Abū Isḥāq was also accused of tadlīs, and he narrated it with ʿanʿanah, and the response is twofold: the first is that Shuʿbah does not narrate from him unless he explicitly states his hearing in it. The other is that he indeed explicitly stated that, as Aḥmad (5/396) said: ʿAffān narrated to us, Shuʿbah narrated to us from Abū Isḥāq who said: I heard Muslim ibn Nudhār with it. It was also narrated by al-Ṭayālisī in his "Musnad" (445): Shuʿbah narrated to us with it except that it occurred in it as "Muslim ibn Quraysh," and it is likely a typographical error. (Note): What is between the brackets from the ḥadīth of the translation was omitted from the "Musnad," and it is an addition required by the context, and without it, the meaning of his statement: "then he placed it under the second" is not clear, as is evident, and I have retrieved it from "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" and "Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd" by Ibn Kathīr (10/90)