used to be prompted, particularly since he contradicted al-Hakam ibn Nafiʿ, who was trustworthy, exceptionally precise, and relied upon by both al-Bukhari and Muslim. Thus, al-Haythami’s statement (10/351), “Ahmad and al-Tabarani narrated it, and both their chains are good,” is itself not sound.

Yes, Hisham ibn ʿAmmar was corroborated: Ibn Jarir said in al-Tafsir (23/17): Muhammad ibn ʿAwf al-Taʾi narrated to me; Ibn al-Mubarak narrated to us from Ibn ʿAyyash, through the same chain, but without the unnamed man. I say: This is an authentic chain if Shurayh heard it from ʿUqbah, though scholars differed as to whether he heard from any of the Companions, as you will see in al-Tahdhib and elsewhere. And Allah knows best.

Note: Al-Suyuti was grievously deficient in tracing the sources of these two hadiths in al-Jamiʿ al-Kabir, especially the hadith of Muʿawiyah ibn Haydah, which he attributed (1/339) only to Ibn ʿAsakir! Yet you have learned that a number of authorities narrated it, each of whom was more deserving of citation than Ibn ʿAsakir—let alone that they were several, among them al-Hakim in his Sahih. As for the hadith of ʿUqbah, he attributed it (1/231) only to Ahmad and al-Tabarani! Moreover, its chain is not authentic, owing to the discrepancy in it which you have already seen.

Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir indicated his preference for the narration of al-Hakam ibn Nafiʿ. After citing the narrations of Hisham ibn ʿAmmar and Muhammad ibn ʿAwf, he said: “Imam Ahmad—may Allah have mercy on him—presented its chain as good, saying: ‘Al-Hakam ibn Nafiʿ narrated to us ...’” and so forth. In sum, the addition “the left” is not authentic in the hadith of ʿUqbah, because of the inconsistency in its chain and because it does not occur in the hadith under discussion; nor does it occur in any other hadith from