neither under those named “Umar,” nor under those named “Amr,” nor under those whose father is called “Habib,” nor under those named “Hushab.” 3. In light of the foregoing, it is more probable that this ʿAmr b. Hushab is different from the ʿUmar b. Hushab whose biography the scholars recorded: first, because each reports from a different shaykh, and second, because ʿAbd al-Razzaq explicitly said of the former that he was rajul salih (a righteous man). 4. Whichever identification is correct, it is unwarranted to grade him “unknown” when ʿAbd al-Razzaq has judged him a “righteous man,” for the knowledge of one who knows outweighs the ignorance of one who does not. Evidently the biographers never encountered this statement, or they would have cited it. Allah knows best. Thirdly, the wording “ʿAta b. Abi Rabah” in the version related by al-Bukhari shows that my earlier remark—“he is Ibn Yasar”—was an error; please take note. Fourthly and finally, the preceding discussion reveals that the real defect in the isnad is the unnamed Hudhali tabiʿi, for his omission renders the chain incomplete. Hence al-Bukhari declared after it: “This is mursal,” i.e., disconnected. Even so, such a report can serve for corroboration, and its force is reinforced by the traditions cited before it. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir—may Allah have mercy on him—nevertheless ruled in his Musnad commentary (11/103–104) that the isnad is hasan, adopting ʿAbd al-Razzaq’s appraisal of ʿAmr b. Hushab. He added concerning the Hudhali: “He is an unnamed tabiʿi whose status is unknown; he is therefore under the veil (covered).” This, however, is an unduly broad application of the concept, for “being under the veil” in transmission also requires accuracy and retention. The more correct stance is to use his narration only as supporting evidence. Allah knows best.