(1) In Taqrib, Ibn Hajar rules that the narrator is matruk (abandoned); however, a hadith with virtually the same wording is authentically recorded by Muslim (no. 523) through Abu Hurayra, by both Bukhari and Muslim through Jabir, and by Muslim (no. 522) through Hudhayfa. (*) Khalifa, Tabaqat, pp. 167–327; Bukhari, Tarikh, 8/81; Tarikh al-saghir, 2/43; Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa-l-taʿdil, 8/449-450; Ibn Hibban, Kitab al-majruhin, 3/61; al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, 13/323, 424; Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi l-tarikh, 5/585, 549; Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-aʿyan, 5/415-423; al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, 1414, 1417; al-Dhahabi, Tadhhib al-tahdhib, 4/98/1; Tadhkirat al-huffaz, 1/168; Mizān al-iʿtidal, 4/265; al-Dhahabi, al-ʿIbar, 1/314; Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Mirʾat al-jinan, 1/309; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa-l-nihaya, 10/107; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, 10/449-452; al-Nuwayri, al-Nujum al-zahira, 2/12; Ibn al-Salah, al-Jawahir al-mudiya, 1/26-32; Khulasat tadhhib al-kamal, 401; Ibn al-ʿImad, Shadharāt al-dhahab, 1/227-229. The printed edition of Mizān al-iʿtidal, 4/265, edited by ʿAli Muhammad al-Bajawi, contains the following entry: “Al-Nuʿman b. Thabit b. Zuta, Abu Hanifa al-Kufi, the foremost representative of raʾy (legal reasoning). From the standpoint of his memorization, he was deemed weak by al-Nasaʾi, Ibn ʿAdi and others. Al-Khatib devoted two sections of his Tarikh to him, presenting both his defenders and his detractors.” The Indian scholar ʿAbd al-Hayy al-Lakhnawi expands at length on the claim that this entry was interpolated into Mizān al-iʿtidal; see Ghayth al-ghamam ʿala hawashi al-kalam, p. 146, where he marshals numerous arguments to exclude it from the work. Among his observations—may Allah have mercy on him—is that “this passage is missing from several reliable manuscripts, as I have seen with my own eyes,” a point supported by al-ʿIraqi in Sharh Alfiyyat al-hadith, 3/260: “Ibn ʿAdi, in al-Kamil, mentioned everyone who faced any criticism, even if the person was reliable.”