thus he said! This is what his knowledge encompassed, otherwise, it is refuted by the narration of al-Bazzār in "Musnad" (4/140 - Kashf al-Astār): "Qāsim ibn Bishr ibn Maʿrūf narrated to us: Qabīṣah ibn ʿUqbah narrated it with this isnād; except that he said: 'Rabiʿī ibn Ḥirāsh' instead of 'Shaddād ibn ʿAmmār.'" and he said: "We do not know it to be narrated with this wording except from Ḥudhayfah with this isnād, and ʿUbayd is a well-known Kūfan, a group narrated from him." I said: among them are Wakīʿ, ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Mūsá, and Abū Nuʿaym; as in "al-Jarḥ" (2/2/409), and Abū Aḥmad al-Zubayrī; as in "Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān" (7/157). When Qabīṣah is added to them, they become five trustworthy narrators, most of whom are ḥuffāẓ, so he is trustworthy, and Abū Ḥātim and Abū Zurʿah said: "There is no harm in him." Ibn Maʿīn said: "Ṣuwailiḥ." The rest of the narrators of al-Bazzār are trustworthy from the men of "al-Tahdhīb," except for Qāsim ibn Bishr ibn Maʿrūf, whom al-Khaṭīb mentioned (12/427), and he gave him the kunya Abū Muḥammad al-Baghdādī and said: "He was trustworthy." Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (9/19), so the isnād is authentic, and it is not undermined by the fact that Aḥmad ibn ʿUmar al-Wakīʿī differed in the narration of al-Ṭabarānī; he replaced Rabiʿī ibn Ḥirāsh with "Shaddād ibn ʿAmmār," because both al-Wakīʿī and Ibn Maʿrūf are trustworthy. It is possible that ʿUbayd ibn Ṭufayl narrated it from Rabiʿī ibn Ḥirāsh and Shaddād ibn ʿAmmār, narrating it at times from one and at times from the other, and it is authentic from the first as mentioned earlier; because he is a trustworthy mukhḍaram. As for Shaddād, he is not well-known. Al-Bukhārī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (4/358) through the narration of ʿUbayd ibn Ṭufayl from him. I was almost inclined to prefer the narration of ʿUbayd ibn Ṭufayl from Rabiʿī because it is more famous than his narration from Shaddād; except that I saw al-Wakīʿī was followed by al-Bukhārī in his narration, where he said: