and it was also recorded by al-Bazzār in his "Musnad" (1/415/876): one of our companions narrated to us from ʿĪsá ibn al-Ḥaḍramī with the same isnād. There were some typographical errors in it. I said: This isnād is good; there is some discussion about Yaʿqūb ibn Ḥumayd, but it does not lower him from the level of being used as evidence, and al-Bukhārī strengthened him as mentioned in "al-Mughnī," and al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "Truthful, but perhaps errs." As for ʿĪsá ibn al-Ḥaḍramī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim (3/274) quoted his father saying: "There is no harm in him." And Kulthūm ibn ʿAlqamah—also known as (Kulthūm ibn al-Muṣṭaliq) in reference to his great-grandfather—was declared trustworthy by Ibn Ḥibbān (5/335), and a group narrated from him, and it was said that he was a Companion, which is why al-Ḥāfiẓ affirmed his trustworthiness, and thus I included a ḥadīth of his in "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" (2703). (Note): When I authored "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb" and published it, I excluded this ḥadīth due to al-Mundhirī weakening it by introducing it with "It was narrated..." and al-Haythamī's critique saying (3/62): "...and in it is someone unknown." At that time, I could only rely on them due to not having access to its isnād in those sources, especially the book of Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim. When Allāh granted the printing of these works and facilitated my return to them and study of its isnād, it became clear to me that the critique was unfounded, particularly concerning the isnād of Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim. As for the isnād of al-Bazzār, the flaw is clear; because he did not name his shaykh, although I do not rule out that it might be Yaʿqūb ibn Ḥumayd, and as for