"we do not know it to be narrated from Jābir except through this isnād." I said: So al-Mundhirī's statement in "al-Targhīb" (3/269): "It was narrated by Aḥmad and al-Bazzār, and Aḥmad's isnād is acceptable!" is questionable due to his differentiation between the narration of Aḥmad and al-Bazzār, while both of them narrated it through the route of Zuhayr—who is Ibn Muḥammad al-Tamīmī al-Khurāsānī. They criticized the narration of the Shāmīs from him, and this is not among them; for Abū ʿĀmir al-ʿAqdī is a trustworthy Baṣran, and his name is ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿAmr. The ḥāfiẓ said—regarding Zuhayr: "The narration of the people of Shām from him is not reliable, so he was weakened because of it. Al-Bukhārī said from Aḥmad: It is as if Zuhayr whom the Shāmīs narrate from is another." Abū Ḥātim said: "He narrated in Shām from his memory, so his errors increased." Al-Dhahabī said in "al-Kāshif": "Trustworthy, but he narrates rare and objectionable things." I said: More than one of the ḥuffāẓ have explicitly stated that what was criticized about him is from the narration of the Shāmīs. Aḥmad said about them: "They narrate from him objectionable ḥadīths... As for the narration of our companions—meaning the Iraqis—from him, it is reliable. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī and Abū ʿĀmir [narrated] reliable and authentic ḥadīths." Al-Bukhārī said: "What the people of Shām narrated from him is objectionable, and what the people of Baṣrah narrated from him is authentic." If you understand this, then the correct view is what al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (8/32):