the two Shaykhs; however, al-Bukhārī only included Sufyān ibn Ḥusayn's narration in a suspended form, as mentioned in "Taqrīb al-Ḥāfiẓ," where it is stated: "Trustworthy in matters other than al-Zuhrī, by their consensus." I said: And this is not from al-Zuhrī, as you can see, so I do not know why al-Ḥāfiẓ only deemed it ḥasan, while the rest of the isnād's narrators are trustworthy men of the two Shaykhs, as mentioned earlier, and al-Ḥāfiẓ declared them all trustworthy in his "Taqrīb"? It was also recorded by al-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī in "al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtārah" (58/189/2) through the paths of Abū Nuʿaym and al-Ṭabarānī. (Benefit): Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: "The brotherhood was established twice: once among the Muhājirīn exclusively, which was in Mecca, and once between the Muhājirīn and the Anṣār." Among the evidences for the first brotherhood is this authentic ḥadīth; because al-Zubayr and Ibn Masʿūd are from the Muhājirīn, as is known. It appears that Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allāh have mercy on him—did not come across this ḥadīth and its likes; thus, he denied this brotherhood (11/99-100), and this was mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, who refuted him with this ḥadīth and others, so refer to it. The ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās was cited by al-Haythamī in "al-Majmaʿ" (8/171), where he said: "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ' and 'al-Kabīr,' and the men of 'al-Awsaṭ' are trustworthy!" I said: That's what he said! This implies a difference in the isnāds of the two "Muʿjams," otherwise, why specify "al-Awsaṭ" alone for the reliability of its narrators? It is not so; for he said in both: ʾAḥmad ibn Yaḥyá al-Ḥulwānī narrated to us: Saʿīd ibn Sulaymān narrated to us... *