first: that this Bashīr was not mentioned as having any narrations. second: that it was correctly recorded in "the two Muʿjams" as Basr ibn Saʿīd, as previously mentioned. third: that they mentioned him—I mean Basr—among the teachers of Bukayr ibn al-Ashajj, but it appeared in "Tahdhīb al-Kamāl" by al-Mizzī as "Bishr ibn Saʿīd," with the bāʾ explicitly marked with a kasrah! Then it was corrected in the new edition. *The brotherhood between the Muhājirīn themselves

(The Prophet ﷺ established brotherhood between al-Zubayr and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd). It was recorded by al-Bukhārī in "al-Adab al-Mufrad" (568), and al-Bayhaqī in "al-Sunan" (6/262) through two chains from Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Thābit from Anas with it. I said: And this isnād is authentic according to the criteria of Muslim and al-Ḥākim, so it is surprising how he did not include it! Likewise, al-Ḥāfiẓ overlooked it in "al-Fatḥ" (7/271) and did not mention it from the ḥadīth of Anas, but rather from the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, attributed to al-Ḥākim and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr with a good isnād. So I say: It was recorded by al-Ḥākim (3/314), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" (12/179/12816) and "al-Awsaṭ" (1/53/1/915) through the chain of Saʿīd ibn Sulaymān al-Wāsiṭī: narrated by ʿAbbād ibn al-ʿAwwām from Sufyān ibn Ḥusayn from Yaʿlá ibn Muslim from Jābir ibn Zayd from Ibn ʿAbbās who said: ... and he mentioned it. Al-Ḥākim said: "Authentic isnād," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. And I say: Rather, it is authentic according to the criteria of Muslim; for all its narrators are trustworthy from the men of