"ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ." Al-Ḥākim said: "ṣaḥīḥ al-isnād," and al-Dhahabī agreed, as did al-Ḥāfiẓ, who said in "al-Fatḥ" (10/31) after attributing it to Aḥmad: "Its chain is authentic." All of this is an error; for al-Ḥāfiẓ himself said in "al-Taqrīb": "Simāk ibn Ḥarb is truthful, but his narrations from ʿIkrimah specifically are disturbed, and he changed later on, so he might have been prompted." 4- As for the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib; it is narrated by Isrāʾīl and Shuʿbah from Abū Isḥāq from him with the last part mentioned earlier. It was recorded by al-Tirmidhī (3050, 3051), Ibn Ḥibbān (5356 and 5357), and al-Ṭayālisī in "Musnad" (715), and through his route: Ibn Abī Ḥātim (no. 6775), Abū Yaʿlá (1719-1720), and al-Ruwayānī (1/229/324). Abū Yaʿlá added in a ṣaḥīḥ narration to Shuʿbah who said: I asked: Did you hear it from al-Barāʾ? He said: No. This means he concealed the intermediary between him and al-Barāʾ, so it is defective due to the unknown intermediary. This was ignored by al-Dārānī in his commentary on "Abū Yaʿlá," where he said: "Its isnād is ṣaḥīḥ." He confirmed this oversight in his commentary on "al-Mawārid," where he said (4/340): "Its isnād is ṣaḥīḥ, Shuʿbah heard early from Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī..." Then he proceeded to summarize its extraction contrary to his usual practice; because he attributed it to Abū Yaʿlá, and said: