to his grandfather "Hishām" and given the kunya Abū ʿAlī, and likewise he was given this kunya in "al-Jarḥ" (1/2/44), and it was said: "Resident of al-Ramlah." Then it was said: "He is trustworthy, I wrote from him in al-Ramlah." His grandfather was named "al-Sakan." It seems that the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar did not come across this; for he said: "Ibn ʿAsākir said in 'al-Nubbal': I think he is the son of Yaḥyá ibn al-Sakan who resided in al-Ramlah, and if it is him, then he died in the year 257." I say: Ibn al-Sakan is very weak, and he is definitely not this one." And I say: I do not know the basis of the ḥāfiẓ in this critique?! Especially as it contradicts the statement of Ibn Abī Ḥātim about him, and his omission of mentioning him in "Lisān al-Mīzān," and I did not see him in "al-Mīzān," let alone in "Tahdhīb" and its branches. Al-Razī included this in al-Dhahabī's "al-Kāshif" and said: "Trustworthy ḥāfiẓ," and he said something similar in "al-Mīzān," and Ibn al-Sakan did not distinguish—as is his habit—between him and those who resemble him in lineage or otherwise. And Allāh knows best. He was followed by ʿUthmān ibn Ṭālūt: Thana Muḥammad ibn Bilāl on it. It was recorded by Ibn ʿAdī in "al-Kāmil" (6/133): Ḥaddathanā Muḥammad: Thana ʿUthmān on it. I say: And this ʿUthmān ibn Ṭālūt was mentioned by Ibn Ḥibbān in "al-Thiqāt" (8/454), and he was attributed to al-Jaḥdarī al-Baṣrī, narrating from Abū ʿĀṣim and the people of his town, he was more knowledgeable than his father, and he died young without benefiting from his knowledge in the year 234