Note / Clarification: (1) In manuscript (B) there is a corruption (a scribal error), and the name there has been written as "Ahmad bin Ishaq al-San'ani".

Technical note / Defect ('illah): (2) In the manuscripts this name occurs as "Muhammad bin Ahmad", with Muhammad placed before Ahmad, whereas this teacher's actual name is as we have established it (i.e. Ahmad bin Muhammad). The author (al-Hakim) has written the name in several places in "al-Mustadrak" with Ahmad placed before Muhammad.
Note / Clarification: Although among the author's teachers there are two men named "Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Shu'ayb", one of them has the kunyah Abu Ahmad and the other Abu Sa'id, and he mentioned both of them in "Tarikh Naysabur".

Grading: (3) This narration is "hasan", if Allah wills.
Technical note / Defect ('illah): This chain is apparently weak because of the weakness of Muhammad bin Ya'la al-Sulami al-Kufi, but al-Nadr bin Shumayl and Sa'id bin Muhammad al-Warraq have corroborated him. Al-Nadr bin Shumayl is thiqah (trustworthy), while Sa'id bin Muhammad is weak. On account of the narration of al-Nadr bin Shumayl this chain is hasan, because Muhammad bin 'Amr bin 'Alqamah is "hasan al-hadith", although there is disagreement from him over narrating it as connected or as mursal.
Details of the narration: Contrary to the three narrators mentioned, other narrators have narrated it as mursal (without mentioning the Companion) and did not mention Abu Hurayrah. Yazid bin Harun and Sa'id bin Yahya al-Lakhmi also narrated it as mursal.
Important point: In any case, this hadith has other supporting reports on the basis of which it reaches the level of hasan, if Allah wills.

Reference / Source: Abu al-Shaykh recorded it in "Amthal al-Hadith" (94), Abu Nu'aym in "Akhbar Asbahan" (2/250-251) and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in "al-Bukhala'" (37), through various routes via Abu 'Amr Muhammad bin 'Abd al-'Aziz bin Abi Rizmah, who narrated it from al-Nadr bin Shumayl, from Muhammad bin 'Amr (bin 'Alqamah), with this same chain.

Reference / Source: Ibn Sa'd narrated it in "al-Tabaqat al-Kubra" (3/528) from Yazid bin Harun, and Hisham bin 'Ammar in his "Hadith" (106) from Sa'id bin Yahya al-Lakhmi; both of them (Yazid and Sa'id) narrate it from Muhammad bin 'Amr bin 'Alqamah, from Abu Salamah (bin 'Abd al-Rahman), as "mursal".

Note / Clarification: This narration will come later with the author (al-Hakim) at number (7480) via Sa'id bin Muhammad al-Warraq, who narrates it from Muhammad bin 'Amr, from Abu Salamah, from Abu Hurayrah, as "mawsul" (connected).

Corroborating chains and supporting reports: It is supported by the hadith of Ka'b bin Malik (may Allah be pleased with him), which is found in Ya'qub bin Sufyan's "Tarikh" (as in Ibn Hajar's "al-Isabah" 1/294), al-Tahawi's "Sharh Mushkil al-Athar" (5538), al-Tabarani's "al-Kabir" (19/163), Abu al-Shaykh's "Amthal al-Hadith" (95), Ibn Mandah's "Ma'rifat al-Sahabah" (1/220-221), Abu Nu'aym's "Ma'rifat al-Sahabah" (1170), al-Khatib's "al-Bukhala'" (32) and Ibn Hajar's "Taghliq al-Ta'liq" (3/347).
Grading: Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar declared its chain sahih in "Taghliq al-Ta'liq", but in "Fath al-Bari" he explained that all its narrators are thiqah, except that there is disagreement over al-Zuhri about narrating it as connected or as mursal.

Technical note / Defect ('illah): We say: the matter is indeed so (as Ibn Hajar said), because more than one narrator has narrated it from al-Zuhri, from Ibn Ka'b bin Malik, as "mursal".
Reference / Source: Ma'mar bin Rashid recorded it in "al-Jami'" (20705), Ibn Sa'd (3/528), al-Khara'iti in "Makarim al-Akhlaq" (593, 647) and "Masawi' al-Akhlaq" (366), al-Tabarani in "al-Kabir" (19/164) and al-Khatib in "al-Bukhala'" (35), through various routes from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, from Ibn Ka'b bin Malik.

Technical note / Defect ('illah): Some narrators give the name as "'Abd al-Rahman bin Ka'b bin Malik" and some as "'Abd al-Rahman bin 'Abd Allah bin Ka'b bin Malik"; both are Successors from whom al-Zuhri narrates. The second ('Abd Allah's son) is the nephew of the first. Both narrate from Ka'b bin Malik, but the more likely view is that this narration is "mursal".

Corroborating chains and supporting reports: It is also supported by the hadith of Jabir bin 'Abd Allah, which is narrated by Abu Nu'aym (1171) and al-Khatib (36) with the chain of 'Abd al-Malik bin Jabir bin 'Atik from Jabir, and its chain is acceptable (la ba'sa bih).
Technical note / Defect ('illah): However, Abu al-Zubayr Muhammad bin Muslim al-Makki (in al-Bukhari's "al-Adab al-Mufrad" 296) contradicted Ibn 'Atik: narrating from Jabir bin 'Abd Allah, he mentioned the name "'Amr bin al-Jamuh" instead of "Bishr bin al-Bara' bin Ma'rur". This chain of Abu al-Zubayr is sahih, and he explicitly stated that he heard it from Jabir.

Details of the narration: Likewise, with the mention of 'Amr bin al-Jamuh, 'Amr bin Dinar, Habib bin Abi Thabit and Muhammad bin al-Munkadir all narrated it as "mursal" in Ibn Sa'd (4/376). However, some narrators made the narration of 'Amr bin Dinar "mawsul" by mentioning Jabir.
Reference / Source: Muhammad bin Makhlad recorded it in "al-Muntaqa" (157), al-Bayhaqi in "Shu'ab al-Iman" (10359), and al-Khatib in "al-Bukhala'" (24, 26) and "Tarikh Baghdad" (5/354).

Technical note / Defect ('illah): Some made the narration of 'Amr bin Dinar "mawsul" with the chain of Abu Salamah from Abu Hurayrah (as is the author's chain).
Reference / Source: Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Khuzi narrated it from 'Amr, and it is in al-Tabarani's "al-Awsat" (3650), al-Isma'ili's "Mu'jam al-Shuyukh" (278), Abu al-Shaykh's "al-Amthal" (90), al-Bayhaqi's "Shu'ab al-Iman" (10358) and al-Khatib's "al-Bukhala'" (28), but
Caution: this Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Khuzi is a narrator who is "matruk al-hadith" (abandoned in hadith).

Important point: What is "mahfuz" (established as correct) in the narration of Abu Salamah is that it mentions "Bishr bin al-Bara' bin Ma'rur", as has passed.

Grading: That is why Imam al-Daraqutni said in "al-'Ilal" (1399) about the narration of 'Amr bin Dinar that it being "mursal" appears more correct.

Important point: Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in "al-Isti'ab" (p. 84) and Ibn al-Athir in "Usd al-Ghabah" (1/218) preferred the mention of Bishr bin al-Bara' over the mention of 'Amr bin al-Jamuh.
Note / Clarification: However, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote in "Fath al-Bari" (8/158) that reconciliation between the two hadiths is possible, namely that the story of Bishr be taken as having occurred after the martyrdom of 'Amr bin al-Jamuh (at the Battle of Uhud), so that the two narrations can be reconciled.