he was prone to being influenced, especially since he contradicted al-Ḥakam ibn Nāfiʿ, who is a reliable and firmly established authority cited in the "Ṣaḥīḥayn." Therefore, al-Haythamī's statement (10/351): "Narrated by Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī, and their isnād is good," is not accurate. Yes, Hishām ibn ʿAmmār was followed up on, as Ibn Jarīr mentioned in "Tafsīr" (23/17): Muḥammad ibn ʿAwf al-Ṭāʾī narrated to me, saying: Ibn al-Mubārak narrated to us from Ibn ʿAyyāsh with it, excluding the unnamed man. I said: This isnād is authentic if Shurayḥ heard it from ʿUqbah, as there is a difference of opinion regarding his hearing from any of the Companions, as you can see in "Tahdhīb" and other sources. And Allāh knows best. (Note) Al-Suyūṭī was severely deficient in his referencing of the two ḥadīths in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr," especially the ḥadīth of Muʿāwiyah ibn Ḥaydah, as he attributed it (1/339) only to Ibn ʿAsākir! And you know that it was narrated by a group, each of whom is more deserving of being attributed to than Ibn ʿAsākir, especially since they include al-Ḥākim in his "Ṣaḥīḥ." As for the ḥadīth of ʿUqbah, he attributed it (1/231) only to Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī! Although its isnād is not authentic due to the known differences in it, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr indicated the preference for the narration of al-Ḥakam ibn Nāfiʿ, as he said after presenting the narration of Hishām ibn ʿAmmār and Muḥammad ibn ʿAwf: "Imām Aḥmad ﵀ perfected its isnād, saying: Ḥakam ibn Nāfiʿ narrated to us..." and so on. In summary, the addition of "the left" in the ḥadīth of ʿUqbah is not authentic due to the inconsistency in its isnād, and it does not appear in the ḥadīth of the chapter, nor does it appear in any other ḥadīth