Shuʿbah too heard from him, as recorded in al-Bukhārī’s History (1/1/114).

Ibn al-Jawzī and others deemed him unknown, so al-Dhahabī included him in al-Mīzān, where he said: “Muḥammad ibn Shabīb: Ibn al-Jawzī said, ‘Unknown.’ He then cited in al-Wāhiyāt a hadith for him: Hishām ibn Ḥassān, from Muḥammad ibn Shabīb ...” — and he cited it. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said: “This is a rejected hadith.”

I say: Strangely, al-Dhahabī did not notice that he was al-Zahrānī, whose biography was recorded by al-Bukhārī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim. It may be said that he did notice this, but regarded him as someone else. I say: In that case, the scholarly duty required by this discipline was that he point this out, as al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar did—although he did not reach the correct conclusion. For he commented on it in al-Lisān, saying: “The Muḥammad ibn Shabīb mentioned is Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā ibn Shabīb al-Nahdī, who was named after his grandfather; he has an entry in al-Kāmil.” I say: He too failed to recognize that he was al-Zahrānī, or at the very least to point out that he was someone else. Moreover, among the entries for men named Muḥammad in Ibn ʿAdī’s al-Kāmil, I have not found anyone whose grandfather was named Shabīb al-Nahdī. And Allah knows best.

Regarding the hadith, al-Mundhirī said (4/227): “Abū Yaʿlā narrated it, and its chain of transmission is good, though its text contains an objectionable element. Al-Bazzār also narrated it, with the wording ...”

Al-Haythamī said (10/391): “Abū Yaʿlā narrated it from his shaykh Isḥāq, without identifying him. If he was Ibn Rāhawayh, then its narrators are among the narrators of the authentic collections; but if he was someone else, I do not know him.”

I say: Rather, he was certainly someone else, for he cited a hadith from him before this one, and another before those two,