I said: Its narrators are reliable, the narrators of Muslim; except that Ibn Jawwāb has been criticized. Ibn Maʿīn said: "Reliable," and at another time said: "Not that strong." His teacher, ʿAmmār, is stronger than him, and al-Nasāʾī and al-Bazzār said about him: "There is no harm in him." He was contradicted in his isnād by three reliable companions of Abū Isḥāq—who is al-Sabīʿī—the first being Sufyān al-Thawrī. ʿAbd al-Razzāq said in "al-Muṣannaf" (3/59/4790): Sufyān informed us from Abū Isḥāq from Mujāhid with it, without the addition, similar to the narration of al-Nasāʾī without the addition. Through the route of ʿAbd al-Razzāq: it was extracted by Aḥmad (2/35), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (12/414/13527). Then Aḥmad said (2/94): Abū Aḥmad al-Zubayrī narrated to us: Sufyān narrated it to us. It was also extracted by al-Tirmidhī (2/84/417), and Ibn Mājah (1149) through other routes from Abū Aḥmad al-Zubayrī. Al-Tirmidhī said: "A good ḥadīth, and we do not know it from the narration of al-Thawrī from Abū Isḥāq except from the narration of Abū Aḥmad, and what is known among people is the ḥadīth of Isrāʾīl from Abū Isḥāq, and it has also been narrated from Abū Aḥmad from Isrāʾīl this ḥadīth as well."