about him, even though he was trustworthy. Al-Khaṭīb included his biographical notice (2/390) and related from Ṣāliḥ Jazrah that he said: “Trustworthy.” He died in 229 AH, and Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Bazzār likewise graded him trustworthy. See al-Ṣaḥīḥah (3038 and 3040).
Fourth: In his annotations to al-Zuhd, Brother Badr al-Badr overlooked the anomalous nature of Muḥammad ibn Bashshār’s narration and its contradiction of the version transmitted by the rest of the group from Yaḥyā, from Sufyān. He therefore treated Sufyān’s anomalous narration as corroboration for Shuʿbah’s anomalous narration! Thus he said (2/19–20): “Both chains are established, with no hidden defect in either of them… Shuʿbah was corroborated in it by Sufyān al-Thawrī, as narrated by al-Nasāʾī (2)!”
All of this overlooks the preceding analysis, as well as the fact that Aḥmad’s narration (1) from Shuʿbah names Ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abzā as Saʿīd. This confirms that the disagreement between the two hadith masters remains: one names him differently from the other, who calls him ʿAbd Allāh, as mentioned above. Thus, the corroboration is not established, even if we concede—as appears to be the case—that Ibn Bashshār’s narration is established.
The correct view is either to give preference to Sufyān’s narration over Shuʿbah’s, or to reconcile the two by holding that each of them retained what he heard, as explained above. When refuting al-Haddām, I had indicated (p. 1235) that his preference for Shuʿbah’s narration over Sufyān’s, and his weakening of the latter, may have rested on Ibn Bashshār’s narration. Thus, he agreed with Brother Badr in relying upon it, but differed from him in the aforementioned weakening, and so was further from what is correct. All of this, I think, is a case of “be different and become known,” lest it be said that he is merely an imitator!
Fifth: The hadith appears in several copies of al-Nawawī’s Adhkār under the Musnad of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abzā. The same is found in Ibn ʿAllān’s commentary on it (3/126), and this is an error.