Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, who is Abū Jaʿfar al-Bajlī al-Ḥulwānī, was mentioned by al-Khaṭīb (5/212) and his reliability was narrated from a group of ḥadīth scholars. He died in the year 296. Saʿīd ibn Sulaymān is Abū ʿUthmān al-Wāsiṭī, a trustworthy ḥadīth scholar. He was followed by Ibrāhīm ibn Maḥshar: ʿUbaydah ibn Ḥumayd narrated to us from him, except that he said "Tamīm ibn Ṭarafah" instead of "Tamīm ibn Salamah," but this Ibrāhīm is weak. Ibn ʿAdī said in "al-Kāmil" (1/272 - al-Fikr), "He has denounced narrations from the perspective of isnāds that are not preserved." It was extracted by al-Bazzār (4/217-218/3567) and al-Bayhaqī in "al-Shuʿab" (2/320/2). Al-Haythamī said in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (10/221): "Al-Bazzār narrated it from his shaykh Ibrāhīm ibn Majshar - with a jīm - who was declared trustworthy by Ibn Ḥibbān and others, but he is weak. The rest of the men are the men of al-Ṣaḥīḥ." I say: I have not seen anyone mention his reliability except Ibn Ḥibbān, and yet he said about him: "He errs." Someone like him is not used as evidence if he is alone, so how can he be relied upon if he contradicts? The reliance is on Saʿīd ibn Sulaymān al-Wāsiṭī for the authenticity of the ḥadīth. This is a precious benefit I gained from "Muʿjam Ibn Qāniʿ," and when I authored "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb," I did not include it, despite al-Mundhirī saying about it (1/24): "Al-Bazzār narrated it with an isnād that is not objectionable, but there is a difference of opinion regarding the companionship of al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Qays." Because I learned through "al-Majmaʿ" that in the isnād of al-Bazzār there is that weak shaykh, and I had not come across this strong follow-up of Saʿīd, and all praise is due to Allāh for His guidance, and I ask Him for more of His bounty