another matter, and he said after it: "We say: Yes, Shurayk is weak, but al-Aʿmash followed him in this; as previously mentioned." I said: That is a limited corroboration; for in al-Aʿmash's ḥadīth from his first teacher, there is no mention that the Bedouin embraced Islam, but in his narration from his second teacher, there is something contrary, which is the accusation against the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) of sorcery! The statement of his first teacher, "By Allāh! I will never lie about him in anything," does not contradict this, because it does not necessitate Islam, but rather it is like Allāh's saying about the Jews: "They recognize him as they recognize their own sons" (Sūrah al-Baqarah, 146), and yet they resisted and did not embrace Islam. Therefore, Ibn Kathīr said in "al-Tārīkh" (6/124) following this statement: "And this implies that he was at peace with the matter, but not in every aspect." Al-Bayhaqī disagreed; he said (6/17): "In this narration, the man affirmed him; as it is in the narration of Simāk—meaning: by the narration of Shurayk from him—and it is possible that he initially thought it was sorcery, then realized he was not a sorcerer, so he believed and affirmed. And Allāh knows best." I say: There is no doubt that he perceived the miracle as sorcery, but the doubt lies in his belief afterward, and this is what Shurayk uniquely reported, and he is weak when reporting uniquely, so what if he contradicts? Yes; the man's conversion to Islam has been narrated in a story similar to this, but it is not authentic; because it is from the narration of Ḥibbān ibn ʿAlī: Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayyān narrated from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Buraydah from his father who said: A man came to the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) and said: "Show me a sign." He said: "Go to that tree and call it"....... the ḥadīth is similar and includes: