ʿAwānah, Abū Nuʿaym, and others, not to mention the authors of the "Sunan," especially al-Tirmidhī, who authenticated it if the isnād to him was sound. I will present to the readers examples from the narrations of Simāk from Jābir ibn Samurah as marfūʿ: Muslim narrated about forty ḥadīths from him, and al-Tirmidhī included some of them along with other ḥadīths from him, authenticating eight of them and deeming six as ḥasan. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar summarized the statements of the ḥuffāẓ about him—as is his custom—in the briefest terms, saying: "Truthful, and his narrations from ʿIkrimah in particular are disturbed, and he changed towards the end of his life, so he might have been prompted." Therefore, the meticulous ḥuffāẓ—both ancient and modern—have agreed on using his ḥadīth as evidence if he narrates from someone other than ʿIkrimah, and according to the detailed account from Ibn Shaybah. Since Shuʿbah is among those who narrated from him in the ḥadīth of the chapter, the ḥadīth is sound without any issue. This is if the man, with his mentioned perspective, criticizes the authenticity of the ḥadīth because it is from the narration of Simāk. However, if with his perspective he means to criticize the ḥadīth because it is from the narration of ʿAlqamah ibn Wāʾil from his father, it is mentioned in "al-Tahdhīb": "Al-ʿAskarī reported from Ibn Maʿīn that he said: ʿAlqamah ibn Wāʾil from his father: mursal." The response is twofold: First, not conceding to the establishment of this from Ibn Maʿīn due to the unknown narrator between him and al-ʿAskarī—who is Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥimṣī, as I believe—who died in the year 382, while Ibn Maʿīn passed away in the year 233, so there is about a century and a half between them