and among the factors that support this is that ʿAbd Allāh and Saʿīd are brothers. Al-Athram said: I asked Aḥmad: Are Saʿīd and ʿAbd Allāh brothers? He said: Yes. I asked: Which of them is more beloved to you? He said: "Both of them are good in ḥadīth to me." I said: So it is not far-fetched that each of them heard the ḥadīth from their father ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, and Salamah narrated it directly from ʿAbd Allāh, and from Saʿīd through Dharr. Thus, both Sufyān and Shuʿbah narrated what they heard from him, and both are trustworthy and reliable. Perhaps this reconciliation is preferable to accusing Shuʿbah of error. And Allāh knows best. In any case, the ḥadīth is authentic, for the two brothers are trustworthy, and even though Saʿīd is more reliable, both al-Shaykhān used him as evidence. As for ʿAbd Allāh, Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (7/9), as did Ibn Khallafūn, and al-Ḥākim authenticated his narrations (2/240-241) along with al-Dhahabī, and a group of trustworthy narrators reported from him. Thus, the statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Taqrīb": "acceptable." is not acceptable, and the closer opinion is his statement in "Natāʾij al-Afkār" (2/380): "He is good in ḥadīth as Imām Aḥmad said." Thus, the isnād is good, especially with the reconciliation mentioned between the narrations of Sufyān and Shuʿbah. He was also followed by someone whose following is not rejoiced over, namely Yaḥyá ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl, but he differed in the Companion of the ḥadīth, saying: from his father from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abzá from his father from Ubayy ibn Kaʿb. This was reported by al-Ṭabarānī (no. 293) through two routes from him