it was recorded by al-Bayhaqī. Its isnād is good, and all its narrators are trustworthy and well-known, except for Sahl ibn Ziyād. Al-Dhahabī mentioned him in "al-Mīzān" and said: "They did not weaken him, and he has a biography in (Tārīkh al-Islām)." I said: Ibn Ḥibbān deemed him trustworthy (8/291), and a group of trustworthy narrators reported from him, as I clarified in "Taysīr Antifāʿ al-Khillān," so he is reliable and his narrations are used as evidence. Perhaps this is why the two ḥadīth scholars Ibn Kathīr and Ibn Ḥajar remained silent about his isnād, so one should not pay attention to what is mentioned in "al-Lisān" that al-Azdī said about him: "His ḥadīth is rejected." It is strange that the Najdī shaykh mentioned earlier, despite explicitly stating that its isnād is authentic and providing biographies for the narrators below Sahl ibn Ziyād up to al-Bayhaqī's shaykh, did not address his biography at all, even though it was more appropriate for him to do so than for the others he provided biographies for, as I mentioned earlier in Sahl's biography, that no one deemed him trustworthy except Ibn Ḥibbān, and usually, when someone is uniquely deemed trustworthy by him, they are considered unknown. However, I have clarified that he is no longer considered unknown due to those trustworthy narrators reporting from him. Therefore, it was more appropriate to provide his biography and clarify his status than for the narrators he provided biographies for! Then I came across al-Bazzār and others deeming him trustworthy, and I added that to "al-Taysīr," so the isnād is authentic. The third: from Sahl ibn Aslam al-ʿAdawī from Yazīd (original: Zayd) ibn Abī Manṣūr from his father from Abū Hurayrah with a similar account. I said: It was recorded by Abū Nuʿaym in "al-Dalāʾil" (p. 372) and al-Bayhaqī through two chains from Sahl ibn Aslam, who is trustworthy as Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī said, and similarly Yazīd ibn Abī Manṣūr