namely Mūsā ibn ʿĪsā al-Jazarī—al-Ṭabarānī’s shaykh in this chain—for I have found no biographical notice for either of them. However, ʿAbdān criticized Suhayb on account of prompted transmission, as will shortly be mentioned.

There is disagreement concerning ʿAbbād ibn Suhayb: some deemed him reliable, while Ibn Ḥibbān accused him. Al-Dhahabī stated decisively in al-Mīzān that he was one of the abandoned narrators, mentioning the differing views of the hadith authorities concerning him. Al-Ḥāfiẓ added further material in al-Lisān, relating that ʿAbdān said:

“People did not declare him a liar; rather, Suhayb ibn Muḥammad ibn Suhayb prompted him with hadiths toward the end of his life.”

Sulaymān ibn al-Rabīʿ may have been the Basran al-ʿAdawī who narrated from ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Buraydah.

In al-Bukhārī’s al-Tārīkh (2/2/12), it states:

“Sulaymān Abū al-Rabīʿ al-Hamdānī, or al-Hamadhānī, heard from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr and Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī. Ibn al-Mubārak narrated from him, but the chain is interrupted.”

It is therefore possible that he is this same man, and that Ibn, the patronymic element, is a scribal corruption of Abī, the element of the kunyah. And Allah knows best.

Ibn Ḥibbān listed him among the Followers of the Successors in his al-Thiqāt (6/389). He listed the one immediately preceding him among the Successors (4/309). Before him, he listed (4/304): “Sulaymān ibn Abī Hind, the client of Zayd ibn al-Khaṭṭāb al-Qurashī, whose kunyah was Abū al-Rabīʿ. He narrated from ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and Khabbāb ibn al-Aratt. Muḥammad ibn Jaḥādah and Ismāʿīl ibn Samīʿ narrated from him.”

I say: It is possible that these three were one and the same person. And Allah knows best.