that he did not hear from him; in this case, it suffices for us to establish contemporaneity and the possibility of meeting, as is preferred by the majority of scholars, provided there is no deception. Shurayḥ was not accused of any deception as far as I know, and there is no necessary connection between it and transmission according to the scholars. There are many trustworthy narrators who were described as having transmitted, yet their ḥadīth is considered authentic by al-Shaykhayn, let alone others, even if their narration is linked! This is something that will not be hidden, if Allāh wills, from one who has practiced this science and knows it well. And Allāh knows best. As for the ḥadīth; al-Mundhirī, indicating its strengthening, said (4/12/4): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and its narrators are trustworthy." Similarly, al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (8/78).

- (Whoever goes to a soothsayer and believes what he says has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muḥammad). It was recorded by al-Bazzār in "Musnad" (3/400/3045): ʿUqbah ibn Sinān narrated to us: Ghasān ibn Muḍar narrated to us: Saʿīd ibn Yazīd from Abū Naḍrah from Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam): ... and he mentioned it. And he said: "We do not know it to be narrated from Jābir except through this route, and we have not heard anyone narrate it from Ghasān except ʿUqbah." I said: The ḥāfiẓ said in "Mukhtaṣar al-Zawāʾid" (1/647/1171): "The shaykh—meaning: al-Haythamī—said: And he is trustworthy." I said: And this is correct, contrary to al-Haythamī's other statement in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (5/117):