something else, for he said immediately afterward:

“We say: Yes, Sharīk is weak, but al-Aʿmash corroborated him in this, as mentioned above.”

I say: That is an inadequate corroboration, since al-Aʿmash’s report from his first shaykh does not state that the Bedouin embraced Islam. Rather, his narration from his second shaykh contains what contradicts this: namely, that he accused the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, of sorcery. Nor is this contradicted by what his first shaykh said: “By Allah, I shall never accuse him of lying about anything,” for this does not entail Islam. It is rather like Allah’s saying concerning the Jews: “They recognize him as they recognize their own sons,” yet they still stubbornly refused and did not embrace Islam. Therefore, Ibn Kathīr said in al-Tārīkh (6/124), after this statement:

“This indicates that he accepted the matter outwardly, but did not respond to it in every respect.”

Al-Bayhaqī differed, saying (6/17):

“In this narration, the man affirms him, as in Sammāk’s narration—that is, Sharīk’s narration from him. It is possible that he initially mistook it for sorcery, then came to know that he was not a sorcerer, and so he believed and affirmed him. And Allah knows best.”

I say: There is no doubt that he mistook the miracle for sorcery; rather, the doubt concerns whether he believed afterward. This is something reported solely by Sharīk, and he is weak when alone in reporting; so how then when he contradicts others?!

Indeed, it has been reported that the man embraced Islam in an account resembling this one, but it is not authentic, because it is narrated by Ḥibbān ibn ʿAlī: Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayyān narrated to us from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Buraydah, from his father, who said:

A man came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and said, “Show me a sign.” He said, “Go to that tree and call it” … The hadith is similar, and it includes: