in "al-Tafsīr" (1/61 and 64), Ibn Abī Ḥātim (1/31/number 40), Aḥmad (4/378-379), and through him: al-Bayhaqī in "Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah" (5/339-341), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (17/98-100) from him with it. In it, with Ibn Ḥibbān, Aḥmad, and others, is the story of the conversion of ʿAdī (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu), among them al-Tirmidhī; he said: "A good and rare ḥadīth, we do not know it except from the narration of Simāk ibn Ḥarb." I said: He is reliable, moderate except in his narration from ʿIkrimah; for it is inconsistent, and this is from his narration from ʿAbbād ibn Ḥubaysh, and it is not known except through him, so he is unknown, thus he is the flaw in this isnād, and Ibn al-Qaṭṭān declared him unknown, and al-Dhahabī said: "He is not known." So the statement of the commentators on "al-Mawārid" (5/375): "Its isnād is good because of Simāk ibn Ḥarb, and the rest of its men are reliable..." is not good; because it is based on a principle they set for themselves, which is to accept unknown narrators who are only known through one narration, as long as someone like Ibn Ḥibbān and others among the lenient have declared them reliable, while ignoring the stance of the critical scholars towards this leniency. There are dozens, rather hundreds, of narrators declared reliable by those lenient ones, whose reliability was not accepted by the mentioned critical scholars, and this is the example before you, dear reader! The second: from Muḥammad ibn Muṣʿab from Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Simāk ibn Ḥarb from Murayy ibn Qaṭarī from ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim... It was also produced by al-Ṭabarī