and Wakiʿ was followed by a group of trustworthy narrators, but they said: from al-Aʿmash from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Abū Hurayrah... so they mentioned it according to the established path. It was recorded by al-Ṭaḥāwī in "Mushkil al-Āthār" (2/430), and Ibn Ḥibbān in his "Ṣaḥīḥ" (4/116/2551) from ʿĪsá ibn Yūnus, and al-Bazzār in his "Musnad" (1/346/720) from Muḥāḍir ibn al-Muwarraʿ, both from al-Aʿmash with it. Jarīr ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd differed from them and said: from al-Aʿmash from Abū Ṣāliḥ — he said: I think — from Jābir... He was followed by Ziyād ibn ʿUbayd Allāh from al-Aʿmash with it; but he did not say: he said: I think... Both were recorded by al-Bazzār (numbers 721 and 722). Ziyād ibn ʿAbd Allāh is al-Bakkāʾī al-ʿĀmirī, one of the narrators of Muslim, and Jarīr ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd is one of the narrators of the two Shaykhs, and there is slight criticism regarding their memory. I said: the apparent conclusion from all that has been mentioned is that al-Aʿmash was uncertain in his isnād between Abū Hurayrah and Jābir, which does not cause harm, if Allāh wills; because both of them are noble Companions, and Allāh knows best. (A note on errors): Firstly, the commentator al-Dārānī on "Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān" (2/378) overlooked that this difference revolves around al-Aʿmash, so he said in his referencing of the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah: "and it is supported by the ḥadīth of Jābir with al-Bazzār..." thus he made the witnessed a witness, which indicates inexperience in this knowledge!