I said: and this isnād is acceptable for supporting evidence; for Marī ibn Qaṭrī's condition is approximately like that of Ibn Ḥubaysh; except that he was also deemed reliable by Ibn Maʿīn, and al-Dhahabī said about him: "unknown, only Simāk narrated from him." And Muḥammad ibn Muṣʿab—who is al-Qurqusānī—is disputed; al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "truthful but makes many mistakes." These two aforementioned individuals ignored this, so they deemed him reliable and considered his isnād good! Third: al-Ṭabarī said: Aḥmad ibn al-Walīd al-Ramlī narrated to me: he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar al-Raqī narrated to us saying: Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah narrated to us from Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Khālid from al-Shaʿbī from ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim with it. I said: and this isnād is good, its men are trustworthy, the men of the two Shaykhs; except for Aḥmad ibn al-Walīd al-Ramlī, and I suspect he is (Aḥmad ibn al-Walīd ibn Burd al-Anṭākī); Ibn Ḥibbān deemed him reliable and said (8/38): "He narrates from Ibn ʿUyaynah and Ibn Abī Fudayk, al-Faḍl ibn Muḥammad al-ʿAṭṭār narrated to us from him in Antioch, and he died a long time ago." Ibn Abī Ḥātim translated him with the narration of Ibn Abī Fudayk and compiled and said (2/179/176): "My father heard from him in Antioch." Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir—may Allāh have mercy on him—authenticated the isnād in his commentary on "al-Tafsīr" (1/185), without providing us with any information about the condition of this al-Ramlī according to him. And the two aforementioned commentators did the same!