"ʿAbd al-Salām al-Bajlī, narrated the mursal reports. Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Khālid narrated from him." al-Ḥāfiẓ said after him in "al-Tahdhīb": "as if he did not witness the incident with him." I said: This is what al-Bukhārī's previous statement alludes to. It is surprising from him—and also from al-Dhahabī—that they overlooked his statement, not mentioning it, nor even alluding to it in their books "al-Tahdhīb" and "al-Mīzān." As for al-Dhahabī's previous statement: "the ḥadīth is questionable," I do not understand its basis, especially since he authenticated it through the route of Ibn Abī al-Aswad, which is the response to ʿAqīlī's statement: "it is not narrated from an established route." Even if we concede that, its occurrence from multiple routes, none of which include someone accused or abandoned, undoubtedly strengthens each other, as is the principle among the ḥadīth scholars. Then I began to doubt the authenticity of the story mentioned at the beginning of the takhrīj because it is from the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Sawār al-Hāshimī from Manjāb. al-Bayhaqī also reported it in "Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah" (2/2/189/1) except that he said: "from Yazīd al-Faqīr from his father," adding: "from his father." He added after saying: Ibn Abī al-Aswad: "the narration of one of them entered into the narration of his companion" and the reason for the doubt is that I did not know this Ibn Sawār, and I searched for him in the books of men that I have, but I did not find him, so I fear he may not be well-known for narration, as al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī did not mention him among the narrators from (Manjāb). Also, the first addition in al-Bayhaqī, if it is preserved, is another flaw because Abū Yazīd al-Faqīr—whose name is Ṣuhayb—I did not find a biography for him either