al-Barsani’s biography that ‘Ali ibn al-Madini and Muhammad ibn Marzuq al-Bahili narrated from him. Both were among those who narrated this hadith from him: the former in al-Bukhari, as mentioned above, and the latter in Abu Ya‘la, Ibn Hibban, and likewise al-Bazzar. Indeed, one of its chains explicitly identifies him as al-Barsani!

Third: We know of no narrator named Muhammad ibn Bakr al-Muqri’ al-Kufi that could support Ibn Hibban’s categorical assertion that he was the one in question, even as a possibility. Ibn Hibban should have included him in his Thiqāt, just as he did al-Barsani, whom he listed there in two places: among the Followers of the Successors (7/442) and among the Followers of their Followers (9/38). He is therefore among the unknown narrators.

Fourth: Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that he was not al-Barsani, Ibn Hibban’s categorical assertion that al-Salt was Ibn Bahram cannot stand, since he is explicitly identified as such only in the narration of this al-Muqri’, who is unknown.

Fifth: If that is so, then who was this al-Salt? Al-Bukhari’s aforementioned treatment clearly indicates that he was Ibn Mihran, for he cited the hadith in his biography. Similar are the words of Ibn Abi Hatim concerning him (4/439/9271):

“He narrated from al-Hasan and Shahr ibn Hawshab, and Muhammad ibn Bakr al-Barsani and Sahl ibn Hammad narrated from him.”

Accordingly, there are two possible narrators named al-Salt here: Ibn Bahram, whom a number of scholars declared trustworthy, as mentioned above; and Ibn Mihran, who is not well-known, for none but al-Barsani and Shahr narrated from him. Al-Dhahabi therefore said in al-Mizan:

“His status is concealed. Ibn al-Qattan said: ‘His status is unknown.’”

The apparent meaning of al-Bazzar’s words suggests that this al-Salt was the former, for he said immediately after the hadith:

“