and Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl was spoken about, but this does not harm [the narration] here because he is a follower. As for Abū Sayyār, it appears he is the one mentioned in "Kunyā Abī Aḥmad al-Ḥākim" (1/): "Abū Sayyār al-ʿAlāʾ ibn Muḥammad ibn Sayyār, who narrates from Abū al-Muthanná Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr and Ibn ʿAlqamah al-Laythī. Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ṣawāb al-Baṣrī narrated from him, and his ḥadīth is among the Baṣriyyīn." (Note): Brother Ḥasan Abū al-Ashbāl spoke about some of the men in "al-Tawbīkh," explicitly stating the weakness of its isnād, and then followed it by mentioning what the reviewer of his book, Shaykh (Muḥammad ʿAmr ibn ʿAbd al-Laṭīf), said: "[But I fear that (Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd) did not hear it from (Abū Baḥriyyah); for he often transmits mursal narrations. Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in "al-Marāsīl" (p. 90): 'Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd al-Ḥimṣī did not meet Abū Umāmah, nor al-Ḥārith ibn al-Ḥārith, nor al-Miqdām.'" I said: Abū Umāmah died in the year (86), and Abū Baḥriyyah died in the year (77), meaning years before them. So I fear he did not meet him either. (M) ] "!! I say: This fear is not applicable here in my critique; because the lack of meeting that Abū Ḥātim negated does not mean he did not meet them or was not their contemporary, and their close years of death confirm this. It only means he did not hear from them, and thus it does not mean he did not hear from everyone he was contemporary with. This is Imām al-Bukhārī explicitly stating that he heard from Muʿāwiyah, who died in the year (60), so the possibility of his hearing from Abū Baḥriyyah is very apparent and more likely. So if we do not have a text from a ḥāfiẓ