whereupon he travelled to Kūfah and went over the matter with Ibn ʿUqda. Ibn ʿUqda thereupon wrote down this very ḥadith from him, on my authority, from al-Bāghandī. Later I met with So-and-so—meaning al-Jiʿābī—and reviewed it with him, but he did not recognise it. Some years afterward, while we were in Damascus, he asked me again for its isnād; then, later still, we met in Baghdad and discussed it once more, and he said, “ʿAlī ibn Ismāʿīl narrated to us; Abū Bakr al-Athram narrated to us; Ibn Abī Shaybah narrated to us….” I subsequently told my story to So-and-so al-Mufīd, and after some years had passed he began to relate the ḥadith on the authority of al-Bāghandī.

Thus scholarly cross-checking exposes the shortcomings of anyone who is not truthful.

Al-Khaṭīb said: “Al-Sabīʿī was reliable, a ḥāfiẓ, abundantly versed in ḥadith, but hard to deal with. When he grew old he resolved to teach and dictate ḥadith, and had made his preparations, but he died. (1)”

I was told on the authority of al-Dāraqutnī that he said: “I heard al-Sabīʿī say, ‘The vizier Ibn Ḥinzābah came to visit us; the people went out to greet him and I was among them. When he realised that I was a muḥaddith he asked me, “Do you know of an isnād in which four Companions occur consecutively, each one narrating from the other?” I mentioned to him the ḥadith of al-ʿUmālah (2) that is traced back to ʿUmar. He acknowledged my answer, and because of it I gained a special standing with him. (3)’ ”

The ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ghanī also transmitted this account from al-Dāraqutnī.

The ḥāfiẓ al-Sabīʿī died on the seventeenth of Dhū al-Qaʿdah, 371 AH, at an age well into his nineties.

Aḥmad ibn Salāmah informed us in his book from al-Khalīl ibn Badr; and Isḥāq ibn Ṭāriq likewise told us, saying: Ibn Khalīl reported to us; Ibn Badr reported to us; Abū ʿAlī reported to us—