about him, and he is trustworthy. Al-Khaṭīb mentioned him (2/390) and narrated from Ṣāliḥ Jazrah that he said: "Trustworthy." He died in the year 229, and Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Bazzār also deemed him trustworthy. See "al-Ṣaḥīḥah" (3038 and 3040). Fourth: Brother Badr al-Badr overlooked in his commentary on "al-Zuhd" the anomaly of the narration of Muḥammad ibn Bashshār and its contradiction with the narration of the group from Yaḥyá from Sufyān, considering the anomalous narration of Sufyān as a follow-up to the anomalous narration of Shuʿbah!! He said (2/19 and 20): "Both isnāds are established with no defect in them... and Sufyān al-Thawrī followed Shuʿbah on it according to al-Nasāʾī (2)!" And all of this is an oversight of the previous investigation and the naming of the narration of Aḥmad (1) from Shuʿbah to Ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abzá as (Saʿīd), which confirms that the disagreement still exists between the two ḥāfiẓs. This one names him differently than that one as (ʿAbd Allāh) as mentioned earlier, so the follow-up is not established even if we concede the authenticity of the narration of Ibn Bashshār as it appears. The correct view is to prefer the narration of Sufyān over the narration of Shuʿbah, or to reconcile between them by saying that each preserved what he heard as previously explained. I had pointed out (p. 1235) when responding to the demolisher his preference for the narration of Shuʿbah over the narration of Sufyān, and his weakening of the latter, that perhaps he relied on the narration of Ibn Bashshār. He agreed with Brother Badr in reliance, but differed with him in the aforementioned weakening, making him further from correctness. All of this, I believe, is from the category of "oppose to be known," and so that it is not said: he is an imitator!! Fifth: The ḥadīth appeared in several copies of "Adhkār al-Nawawī" from the Musnad of (ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abzá), and likewise in "Sharḥ Ibn ʿAllān" of it (3/126), which is an error