who is not unknown; rather, he is known to be truthful, though weak in retention, as I established in the first volume of al-Ḍaʿīfah—though this may not please the fanatical Hanafis and other followers of deviant desires! This is why Isḥāq ibn Yūsuf, the shaykh of Imam Aḥmad, did not name him; he did so deliberately, as was previously related from Aḥmad.
The second is that he was mistaken about al-Ḥāfiẓ, for the latter’s full statement in al-Taqrīb is: “Of the third generation”—that is, of the middle rank of the Successors, who narrated from some of the Companions. Imam Abū Ḥanīfah was not of that rank, for al-Ḥāfiẓ stated in his biography that he belonged to the sixth generation—that is, the younger Successors, for whom meeting any of the Companions has not been established. Between the Abū Ḥanīfah who narrates here and the Companion who related the hadith stand two narrators: ʿAlqamah ibn Marthad, from Sulaymān ibn Buraydah. So how could he possibly be the father of ʿAbd al-Akram, who narrated from some Companions?!
This could be said if we confined ourselves solely to al-Taqrīb. But if we return to al-Tahdhīb, we become even more certain of the shaykh’s twofold error, for we find that he says in the biography of the former: “He narrated from Sulaymān ibn Hūd, and his son narrated from him.” In the biography of the Imam, he mentioned that he narrated from a group of scholars, including ʿAlqamah ibn Marthad.
- As for the hadith of Anas, Shabīb ibn Bishr narrated it from him. He said: “A man came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, asking him to provide him with a mount, but he had nothing with which to provide him a mount. So he directed him to another man, who provided him with a mount. The man then came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and informed him, whereupon he said …” He then cited it with the wording of the heading, adding: “Indeed, the one who directs …” Al-Tirmidhī recorded it and said: