I say: This chain of transmission is acceptable as corroborating evidence, for Murayy ibn Qaṭariyy’s standing is roughly the same as that of Ibn Ḥubaysh—except that Ibn Maʿīn also declared him trustworthy. Al-Dhahabī said of him: “He is unknown; only Sammāk narrated from him.”

Muḥammad ibn Muṣʿab—al-Qurqusānī—is disputed. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “He is truthful, but makes many mistakes.” Yet the two previously mentioned ignored this, declared him trustworthy, and graded his chain of transmission as good!

The third: al-Ṭabarī said: Aḥmad ibn al-Walīd al-Ramlī narrated to me; he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar al-Raqqī narrated to us; he said: Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah narrated to us from Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Khālid, from al-Shaʿbī, from ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim, relating the same report.

I say: This is a good chain of transmission. Its narrators are trustworthy and among those relied upon by the two Shaykhs, apart from Aḥmad ibn al-Walīd al-Ramlī. I believe that he is Aḥmad ibn al-Walīd ibn Bard al-Anṭākī. Ibn Ḥibbān declared him trustworthy and said (8/38):

“He narrated from Ibn ʿUyaynah and Ibn Abī Fudayk. Al-Faḍl ibn Muḥammad al-ʿAṭṭār narrated to us from him in Antioch, and he died early.”

Ibn Abī Ḥātim included his biography on the basis of reports from Ibn Abī Fudayk and a group of others, and said (2/179/176):

“My father heard from him in Antioch.”

Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir, may Allah have mercy on him, likewise authenticated the chain of transmission in his annotations to al-Tafsīr (1/185), without telling us anything about his assessment of this al-Ramlī’s standing.

The two annotators previously mentioned did the same.