(4/366), and Abū Yaʿlá (13/497/7508), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (2/377/2380) all three from ʿAbd al-Razzāq, and also Aḥmad (4/364 and 366), and al-Ṭabarānī (2381-2385), and al-Aṣbahānī in "al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb" (1/154/290) from various paths including Shuʿbah—and the wording is his according to al-Bayhaqī—from Abū Isḥāq from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Jarīr from his father who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: ... and he mentioned it. I said: This isnād is good; its men are reliable and well-known, except for ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Jarīr; no one authenticated him except Ibn Ḥibbān (5/65), but two other trustworthy narrators have reported from him, so—with his being a follower—his ḥadīth is good, if Allāh wills. Al-Mundhirī in "al-Targhīb" (3/170) also indicated the improvement of this ḥadīth. Abū Isḥāq explicitly stated hearing in Shuʿbah's narration from him according to al-Aṣbahānī. Shuʿbah—and those with him in his isnād—was contradicted by Sharīk, who said: from Abū Isḥāq from al-Mundhir ibn Jarīr from his father as a marfūʿ report! He mentioned: (al-Mundhir) instead of: (ʿUbayd Allāh), and he is more famous than his brother and among the men of Muslim. It was produced by Aḥmad (4/136 and 363 and 366), and Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī in "al-Fitan" (Q 36/2), and al-Ṭabarānī (2379). And Sharīk: he is Ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī, and he has poor memory, so he is not used as evidence when he is alone, especially when he contradicts the trustworthy, and how much more so when Shuʿbah is among them;! From this investigation, you learn the error of the commentator on "Mushkil al-Āthār" (3/214) in his statement about its narrator (ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Jarīr): "And his brother al-Mundhir followed him"! I said: You have come to know that this is a contradiction, not a corroboration!