I said: This weakening is consistent with al-Bukhārī's well-known method of requiring knowledge of a meeting as a condition for a connected chain, but the majority disagree with him, as they are satisfied with the mere possibility of a meeting due to contemporaneity. Although al-Bukhārī's condition is more cautious, it is a condition of perfection for us, not a condition of validity. Based on this, al-Bukhārī's weakening is not applicable to this ḥadīth. Similar to this is the statement of Abū Ḥātim in "al-Marāsīl" (p. 102): "I do not know whether al-Shaʿbī heard from Samurah or not, because he inserted a man between them." I said: This doubt does not negate the connection, because it is not knowledge, so there is no problem. The problem lies in his certainty of negation in the biography of al-Shaʿbī, as narrated by his son in "al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl" (3/323): "He did not hear from Samurah ibn Jundub, and the ḥadīth of Shuʿbah from Firās from al-Shaʿbī: 'I heard Samurah...' is a mistake, as Simʿān ibn Mushanj is between them." I said: The existence of an intermediary between them in some narrations does not negate that he heard from Samurah; it is possible that he heard from him later, as long as contemporaneity is established. Ibn Abī Ḥātim himself mentioned at the beginning of al-Shaʿbī's biography that he saw ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib. Rather, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAlāʾī said in "Jāmiʿ al-Taḥṣīl fī Aḥkām al-Marāsīl" (p. 248/322): "He narrated from ʿAlī (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu), and this is in 'Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī' (1), and he does not suffice with the mere possibility of a meeting as mentioned earlier." I said: ʿAlī (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) died in the year 40, and Samurah in the year 58, so the possibility of meeting and hearing from him is established. Therefore, being certain of his not hearing from him merely due to the presence of an intermediary between them