it was recorded by him: "from Abū Sulaymān the muezzin" without the letter "thāʾ" between the "lām" and "mīm," and this is correct as al-Mizzī mentioned in "al-Tahdhīb" saying: "Abū Sulaymān the muezzin: the muezzin of al-Ḥajjāj, his name is Yazīd ibn ʿAbd Allāh, he narrates from Zayd ibn Arqam and is narrated from by al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUtaybah, ʿUthmān ibn al-Mughīrah al-Thaqafī, and Masʿar ibn Kidām. Among his elevated ḥadīth is what we were informed of..." Then he presented the ḥadīth from the mentioned path. And he said: "We mentioned it to distinguish between them." Meaning: that this Abū Sulaymān the muezzin is different from Abū Sulaymān the muezzin, it was said: his name is Hammām... who was mentioned before this, and this is an important benefit that al-Dhahabī did not mention in his book "al-Kāshif." I said: so he is then Abū Sulaymān and not (Abū Sulaymān) and thus he is not Zayd ibn Wahb as the ḥāfiẓ assumed, but rather Yazīd ibn ʿAbd Allāh as al-Mizzī asserted. And what supports this is that al-Ṭabarānī included the ḥadīth in the biography of (Abū Sulaymān the muezzin from Zayd ibn Arqam) and listed under it three ḥadīths, this being one of them. Indeed, it was recorded by him (4985) from the narration of Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAmr al-Bajalī who narrated to us from Abū Isrāʾīl al-Malāʾī from al-Ḥakam from Abū Sulaymān Zayd ibn Wahb from Zayd ibn Arqam... And this narration is the one the ḥāfiẓ referred to and relied upon in asserting that it is Abū Sulaymān Zayd ibn Wahb. And it escaped him that it includes Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAmr al-Bajalī who is weak, as Abū Ḥātim and al-Dāraquṭnī weakened him, as the ḥāfiẓ himself mentioned in "al-Lisān." Fourth: from Yaḥyá ibn Jaʿdah from Zayd ibn Arqam who said: "We went out with the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) until we reached Ghadīr Khumm..." the ḥadīth is similar to the first path and it includes: