"Sulaymān ibn Arqam is weak." The other is narrated by Aḥmad ibn Mulāʿib ibn Ḥayyān: Ṣāliḥ ibn Isḥāq narrated to us, Yaḥyá ibn Kathīr al-Kāhilī narrated to us - Ṣāliḥ said: "He was trustworthy, and there was no harm in him" - Hishām narrated to us from Ibn Sīrīn from him with it. However, he said "Thalab" instead of "Qird." It was also recorded by al-Bayhaqī (5309). I say: This isnād is good, or good in terms of supporting and corroborating evidence, as its men are trustworthy except for Yaḥyá ibn Kathīr al-Kāhilī, about whom there is disagreement. Abū Ḥātim said: "A shaykh." Al-Nasāʾī said: "Weak." Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (5/527) as did Ibn Shāhīn (354/1525) and mentioned the statement of Ṣāliḥ ibn Isḥāq mentioned in the isnād of this ḥadīth. Al-Ḥāfiẓ followed up in "al-Tahdhīb" by saying: "He said thus! However, Ṣāliḥ mentioned narrated from Yaḥyá ibn Kathīr the Basran, so if what he said is preserved, it resembles that he narrated from both of them. But Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Ibn Ḥibbān and others did not mention a narrator for al-Kāhilī except Marwān." So I say: I do not know what is the basis of al-Ḥāfiẓ in his claim of restricting the narration of the mentioned Ṣāliḥ from Yaḥyá the Basran - who is weak by consensus, indeed some abandoned him - unless the basis is that the original "Tahdhīb al-Mizzī" mentioned his narration from him. My response to him is from two aspects. First: That does not negate that he also narrated from al-Kāhilī as he indicated at the end of his statement. The second: The scholarly principle states: the one who affirms is given precedence over the one who denies, so if someone like Ibn Shāhīn affirms something, it is not correct to follow up on him with such negation as in al-Ḥāfiẓ's statement, and what Ibn Shāhīn affirmed is in this narration of al-Bayhaqī, and it is authentic in its isnād, all its men are trustworthy from his shaykh and above him to Yaḥyá, as he said: "Abū ʿAbdullāh narrated to us."