and the rest of its narrators are trustworthy, the men of Muslim. However, the ḥadīth is authentic; it has many supporting narrations from ʿAlī, ʿAmr ibn ʿUtbah, and others, which are found in "al-Ṣaḥīḥah" (314), "al-Irwāʾ" (2/237), and "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" (1158). I only included it from the mentioned source to uncover the identity of its Anṣārī Companion, so I say: the mentioned sources differed in recording his kunyah, as it is with Aḥmad, his son, al-Bukhārī, and al-Ṭabarānī as previously mentioned (Abū Bashīr). And with Abū Yaʿlá (Abū Hubayrah)! As for al-Bazzār, I do not know what is recorded in it; for its original is not in my possession, nor have I reviewed it (1). My reliance in attributing to it is on the printed edition by Muʾassasat al-Risālah, and I do not trust it much due to the lack of verification in it and the numerous errors of its commentator, including this kunyah, which contradicts what was previously mentioned as (Abū al-Yusr). Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī commented on it saying: "with the fathah on the letter beneath and the neglected sīn, I pointed it out because in the original it is with the sukūn on the sīn." So he said! And I suspect that the shaykh or the commentator did not read the original well, and that perhaps it was like this (Abū al-Nasr) with neglect, and likewise it is in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (2/226) with an additional dot beneath with neglect of the sīn, and this to me is closer, as it is (Abū al-Bashar); meaning with the dot on the sīn; based on the practice of some scribes sometimes; where they would neglect the diacritics relying on their knowledge