it does not include the addition: "al-Dalānī," which is confirmed by al-Bukhārī. Then he is well-known by his kunyah, and his father's name is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, so he is Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. This is how they mentioned his name when they translated the son in his mentioned kunyah, so his matter was obscure to al-Būṣīrī. I say: One of his weaknesses is that he was inconsistent in his isnād, as Wahb ibn Jarīr narrated: Shuʿbah informed us from him with it as marfūʿ. It was recorded from this perspective by al-Bukhārī, al-Bayhaqī, and Abū Jaʿfar al-Razzāz in "His ḥadīth" (4/75/1). He was followed by Salm ibn Qutaybah who heard Shuʿbah narrate it as marfūʿ. Al-Bukhārī recorded it. They were opposed by Ibn Mahdī, Ghandar, and Ādam, all three of them from Shuʿbah with it as mawqūf on Ḥudhayfah. Al-Bukhārī recorded it from them. Al-Ṭayālisī followed them, saying: Shuʿbah narrated it to us as mawqūf. Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned in "al-ʿIlal" (2/290) this disagreement over Shuʿbah, and he presented the marfūʿ narration of Wahb and the mawqūf narration of al-Ṭayālisī, then he said about his father: "Mawqūf is stronger in my view, and Yazīd Abū Khālid is not al-Dalānī." He said thus! And after al-Bukhārī explicitly stated in some narrations of the ḥadīth that he is al-Dalānī, there is no reason for denial because the one who remembers is a proof against the one who does not remember. The ḥadīth has a supporting narration from Saʿīd ibn Ḥurayth as marfūʿ. It was recorded by Ibn Mājah, al-Bayhaqī, Aḥmad (3/467, 4/307), Ibn ʿAdī (9/1), and al-Ḍiyāʾ in "al-Muntaqá min Masmūʿātihi" (79/2) through the route of Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Muhājir who narrated to me from ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿUmayr from ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth from his brother Saʿīd ibn Ḥurayth with it