and I say: it is only ḥasan because Usāmah ibn Zayd, who is al-Laythī, has a slight issue. Ibn Khuzaymah, whose name is ʿUmārah, is trustworthy. Yes, the ḥadīth is authentic, for it has many supporting narrations in "the two Ṣaḥīḥs" and others. Among its supporting narrations is what al-Suyūṭī mentioned in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" from the ḥadīth of al-Sharīd ibn Suwayd, raised [to the Prophet] with the wording: "Stoning is an expiation for what has been done." He said: "It was narrated by al-Nasāʾī and al-Ḍiyāʾ in (al-Mukhtārah)." He added in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr" (1/346/2): "and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr' and Samawiyyah." Its cause, as in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" by al-Ṭabarānī (7252) with his isnād from al-Sharīd, said: "A woman was stoned during the time of the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), and when we finished with her, we came to him," and he mentioned the ḥadīth. In its isnād is al-Qāsim ibn Rushdīn ibn ʿAmīrah, about whom al-Nasāʾī said: "I do not know him." I said: It is not in "Sunan al-Nasāʾī al-Ṣaghīr," and therefore al-Nābulusī did not include it in "al-Dhakhāʾir," so perhaps it is in his "al-Kubrā," and I have not reviewed its isnād to examine it, and it is not in the preserved part in "al-Ẓāhiriyyah" from "the benefits of Samawiyyah." Then I reviewed its isnād through "al-Nukat al-Ẓirāf" by al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAsqalānī (4/154), and it is from another route that does not include the mentioned al-Qāsim, and its men are trustworthy except for Yaḥyá ibn Sulaymān, about whom al-Dhahabī said in "al-Kāshif": "fair." Abū al-Ṭāhir ibn al-Sarraḥ disagreed with him, narrating it from ʿAmr ibn al-Sharīd as mursal, not mentioning his father. Al-Nasāʾī included it in "al-Kubrā," and it is more authentic