they are known from the men of "al-Tahdhīb," except for Bishr ibn Mubashshir al-Wāsiṭī, whom Ibn Ḥibbān declared trustworthy (8/138), and a group of trustworthy people narrated from him, as mentioned in "Taysīr al-Intifāʿ"; thus, he is good in ḥadīth, if Allāh wills. especially since he has been corroborated. al-Bazzār also narrated it separately (2/431-432/2034-2035) through the route of Isḥāq ibn Idrīs: Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us with it. But this Isḥāq—who is al-Aswārī—is abandoned, and al-Haythamī's statement about him in the same chapter of his "Majmaʿ" is inconsistent. He said in the second part of it (8/73) "Cursing a believer is like killing him": "It was narrated by al-Bazzār, and in it is Isḥāq ibn Idrīs, who is abandoned." And he said in the first part at the end of the chapter: "It was narrated by al-Bazzār, and its men are trustworthy"! In this, he follows al-Mundhirī in "al-Targhīb" (3/285)! This is among their errors that the three commentators on "al-Targhīb" (3/458/4091) have adopted! The reason is that (Isḥāq) was not attributed, so they considered him trustworthy, thinking he was among the trustworthy, but he is the same; because it is with a single isnād from al-Bazzār from his shaykh to its end, the only difference being that he was attributed to his father (Idrīs) in one part, and not attributed in the other! Moreover, Ḥammād ibn Salamah was contradicted in his isnād, as al-Bukhārī (6105) narrated it from Wahīb, and Muslim (1/73) from Shuʿbah and others; all of them from Ayyūb from Abū Qilābah from Thābit ibn al-Ḍaḥḥāk al-Anṣārī, raised with it in a ḥadīth extracted in "al-Irwāʾ" (8/201), making the Companion of the ḥadīth (Thābit ibn al-Ḍaḥḥāk), and they omitted between him and Abū Qilābah (Abū al-Muhallab)