it was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī (6/188/5820), but this Ibn Abī Sabrah is abandoned as stated by al-Haythamī (6/252). However, he was followed by the reliable authority cited in the "Ṣaḥīḥayn," Zayd ibn Abī Unaysah, although there was a disagreement regarding him. ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿAmr narrated from him, from Abū Ḥāzim, from Sahl. It was recorded by al-Nasāʾī in "al-Kubrā" (no. 7299) through two chains from him, and its chain is authentic. Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥīm said: Zayd narrated to me, but he did not mention Sahl and thus left it disconnected. It was recorded by al-Nasāʾī (no. 7301), and its chain is also authentic, as (Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥīm)—whose name is Khālid ibn Abī Yazīd ibn Samāk al-Ḥarānī—is a reliable narrator from the men of Muslim, as is his opponent ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿAmr—who is al-Raqī—a reliable narrator from the men of the two Shaykhs, and his narration is preferable to me for valid reasons: the first being that al-Bukhārī relied on him, whereas he did not rely on Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥīm as mentioned before. The second reason is because he is closer and more retentive of the ḥadīth of his teacher Zayd ibn Abī Unaysah, as indicated by Ibn Ḥibbān's statement in his biography in "al-Thiqāt" (7/149): "He was a narrator of Zayd ibn Abī Unaysah." The third reason is that he has a follower, namely Fulayḥ ibn Sulaymān as mentioned earlier. My preference is not disrupted by the narration of al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Awsaṭ" no. (652) from the route of Muʿallal ibn Nufayl al-Ḥarānī who said: ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿAmr al-Raqī informed us from Zayd, but he left it disconnected and did not mention (Sahl). I say: this does not disrupt what I mentioned, because (Muʿallal) is not well-known, and he was not given a biography