mentioned above—indeed, grossly so—and in other sources as well! In Abu Yaʿla and al-Bayhaqi, it appears as “Sayyār”; in al-Bazzār’s Zawāʾid, as “Mubārak”; and in al-Dūlābī’s al-Kunā (1/126), as “Yasār”! What helped us identify him was that his name appears correctly in al-Bazzār’s aforementioned comment following the hadith: “Bashshār alone narrated it, and he is weak.” Al-Hāfiẓ noted this statement of al-Bazzār in al-Lisān, but the aforementioned declaration of weakness was omitted by either the copyist or the printer.

Ibn Abī Ḥātim (1/1/416) related from Abū Zurʿah that he said of him: “A Basran shaykh whose hadith are rejected.” Al-Dhahabī said likewise in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ. As for al-Haythamī’s statement in al-Majmaʿ (8/22), “It was recorded by Abū Yaʿlā and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Awsaṭ, and Abū Yaʿlā’s narrators are trustworthy,” al-Mundhirī made a similar statement in al-Targhīb (3/258): “It was recorded by Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Bazzār, and Abū Yaʿlā through a good chain; its narrators are trustworthy.”

I say: Perhaps the basis for this unqualified declaration that includes this Bashshār among the trustworthy narrators is reliance on Ibn ʿAdī’s statement, “I hope there is no objection to him,” as cited in al-Mīzān. However, al-Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned that the beginning of Ibn ʿAdī’s statement in his al-Kāmil (fol. 35/1) is: “His hadith from Thābit and others are rejected, and he is not corroborated. His hadith are solitary reports, and I hope there is no objection to him. He is better than Bashshār ibn Qīrāṭ.”

I say: Abū Zurʿah declared Ibn Qīrāṭ a liar, and others deemed him weak. Thus, Ibn ʿAdī apparently meant by his statement that there was no objection to him with regard to his truthfulness—that is, that he did not deliberately lie. Otherwise, had he meant this with regard to his retention as well, it would not accord with the beginning of his statement: “His hadith are rejected ...” Ibn Ḥibbān said: “He alone reports from Thābit things that are not among his hadith.”