ibn al-Walīd al-Narsī from Jaʿfar from Ibn al-Munkadir from Jābir as mawqūf, and that is more authentic. I said: meaning mawqūf; because al-Narsī is reliable, and Sayyār has weakness. But I found for him a strong corroborator, as al-Bazzār said in his "Musnad" (1/361/755): al-Walīd ibn ʿAmr ibn Sukayn narrated to us: Ḥabbān ibn Hilāl narrated to us: Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān from Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir from Jābir as marfūʿ. I said: And this isnād is good, all its men are trustworthy from the men of Muslim—none of them is criticized—except al-Walīd ibn ʿAmr; he is not among his men, but he is trustworthy as al-Dhahabī said. And al-Nasāʾī said: "There is no harm in him," and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt," and said (9/228): "He may have erred sometimes." And al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "Truthful." And al-Bazzār criticized it with a strange defect; he said afterwards: "We do not know it from Jābir except from this route, and I do not think Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān heard from Ibn al-Munkadir, nor narrated from him except this"! I said: This is nothing; for he narrated from someone who died earlier than him, and that is Thābit al-Bunānī, and he was not accused of tadlīs, and he is trustworthy from the men of Muslim as previously indicated. Yes; Ibn ʿAdī mentioned him in the biography of this Jaʿfar, indicating that it is among his unique narrations, and that does not harm him; for al-Dhahabī listed several ḥadīths of this kind for him, and said: "And most of that is in 'Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim' ... "