similarly, it was narrated by Rushdīn ibn Saʿd who said: ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith narrated to me from Abū ʿAshānah with it. Ibn al-Mubārak included it in "al-Zuhd" (349). Regarding the ḥadīth, al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (10/270): "It was narrated by Aḥmad, Abū Yaʿlá, and al-Ṭabarānī, and its isnād is good." Our brother Ḥamdī al-Salafī refuted it in his commentary on "al-Muʿjam" by saying: "I said: No, none of the narrators from Ibn Lahīʿah are from the ʿAbādilah, so it is weak." Therefore, the commentator on "Abū Yaʿlá" also weakened it. I said: Weakening is the norm in the ḥadīth of Ibn Lahīʿah, but they missed the narration of al-Ruyānī from the path of Ibn Wahb, who is one of the ʿAbādilah referred to by our brother al-Salafī, so the ḥadīth is authentic, and all praise is due to Allāh. Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd can also be included among the ʿAbādilah, as he narrated it from Ibn Lahīʿah as I have seen, and this is due to what al-Dhahabī mentioned in the biography of Qutaybah in "Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ" (8/15) from the narration of Jaʿfar al-Firyābī: I heard some of our companions mention that they heard Qutaybah say: Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said to me: Your ḥadīths from Ibn Lahīʿah are authentic. I said: because we used to write from the book of Ibn Wahb, then we would hear it from Ibn Lahīʿah." I said: This does not contradict what al-Athram narrated from Aḥmad - as in "al-Tahdhīb" - that he mentioned Qutaybah and praised him, saying: He is the last to hear from Ibn Lahīʿah." I said: This is because he relied on the book of Ibn Wahb, not on what he heard from Ibn Lahīʿah. And Allāh knows best