in "Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn" (8/217/4996), and I did not find anyone who attributed him with this lineage, for he is mentioned in "Tahdhīb al-Kamāl" and its branches without this lineage: (ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr ibn Maʿbad al-Bāhilī Abū al-Zubayr, and it is said: Abū Maʿbad al-Baṣrī, narrated from Thābit al-Banānī... and from him ʿAmmār ibn Ṭālūt, Zayd ibn al-Ḥarīsh, and Naṣr ibn ʿAlī al-Jahḍamī narrated. Abū Ḥātim said: "Unknown"). Al-Ḥāfiẓ added: "I said: Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt", and al-Dāraquṭnī said: Baṣrī, righteous." And I say: attributing him to "al-Thiqāt" is an error that the commentator on "Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn" followed, as he confused him with (ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr al-Asadī al-Kūfī, the father of Abū Aḥmad al-Zubayrī), mentioned by Ibn Ḥibbān in "his Thiqāt" (8/345), and it is one of his leniencies, for Abū Nuʿaym, Abū Zurʿah, and Abū Ḥātim weakened him in "al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl", and likewise he is in "Lisān al-Mīzān", and he is later than al-Bāhilī: this one narrated from Thābit - as you see - so he is a follower of a follower, and al-Asadī was mentioned by Ibn Ḥibbān in the fourth level, meaning: in the followers of the followers of the followers. And al-Bāhilī was not weakened by anyone, rather al-Dāraquṭnī said about him: "Righteous" as mentioned earlier, and al-Dhahabī said in "al-Kāshif": "Not a ḥāfiẓ." This indicates that he is of moderate status, and this is supported by his statement in "al-Mughnī": "Good in ḥadīth." As for al-Ḥāfiẓ, he said: