this is in more than one ḥadīth mentioned earlier (256, 265, 302). The point is that I have not seen any of the early scholars attribute this type of tadlīs to (al-Mubārak). As for the statement of Imām Aḥmad regarding him: "He says in more than one ḥadīth from al-Ḥasan: ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn narrated to us." And the companions of al-Ḥasan do not say that, as mentioned in "al-Mīzān." Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Tahdhīb": "He means that he explicitly states hearing from al-Ḥasan from these individuals (meaning ʿImrān and others), while the companions of al-Ḥasan mention him with ʿanʿanah." This is all that appears in the biography of (al-Mubārak) that could be the basis for al-Ḥāfiẓ accusing him of tadlīs al-taswiyah, and it is—as you see—completely unrelated to it. In fact, it is its complete opposite; for al-Ḥasan, who is al-Baṣrī, is known for tadlīs. If he narrates with ʿanʿanah from ʿImrān or others, it is possible that there is an intermediary narrator whom al-Ḥasan omitted. If (al-Mubārak) explicitly states that al-Ḥasan narrated to him, then he has connected it, which is the complete opposite of tadlīs al-taswiyah, as is clearly evident. The most that can be derived from Aḥmad's statement is that (al-Mubārak) is accused of error in explicitly stating the narration between al-Ḥasan and ʿImrān, contrary to the trustworthy narrators. There is no doubt that (al-Mubārak) has weakness in his memory, and therefore his ḥadīth is downgraded from the level of ṣaḥīḥ to the level of ḥasan, provided that he explicitly states the narration, of course. Therefore, al-Dhahabī said in "Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ": "His ḥadīth did not reach the level of authenticity." And he said in "Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ" (7/284):