the first: it is explicitly mentioned in some of the routes, as you have seen, that it is (al-Wāsiṭī), and al-Nashīṭī is from Basra, not from Wāsiṭ. the second: his teacher in this chain, ʿAbbād ibn al-ʿAwām, is not mentioned in the biography of al-Nashīṭī, but rather in the biography of al-Wāsiṭī. the third: some of the narrators of this ḥadīth from him are not mentioned in his biography either, but rather in the biography of al-Wāsiṭī, such as Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ, nicknamed (Jazrah). thus, from what we have mentioned, it is established that Saʿīd ibn Sulaymān is indeed al-Wāsiṭī, and he is trustworthy, relied upon by the two Shaykhs as previously mentioned in al-Ḥākim's words, and his trustworthiness is agreed upon among the scholars of ḥadīth narrators, except for the statement of Imām Aḥmad in "Kitāb al-ʿIlal wa-Maʿrifat al-Rijāl" (p. 140): "he was prone to making transcription errors as much as you wish." there is nothing in this ḥadīth that could be miscopied by someone of such trustworthiness due to its brevity! therefore, its authenticity should also be a point of agreement, but something else has been reported from Aḥmad as well, in "al-Muntakhab" by Ibn Qudāmah (10/199/1): "Mahna said: I asked Aḥmad about a ḥadīth narrated to us by Saʿīd ibn Sulaymān (I said: he related it with its chain) and Aḥmad said: Allāh did not create anything of this, this is the ḥadīth of Abū Hārūn from Abū Saʿīd." I said: Aḥmad's response could mean one of two things: either that Saʿīd, according to him, is al-Wāsiṭī, and in this case, his doubting the chain is baseless in my view due to his trustworthiness as previously mentioned. or he meant that he is the weak al-Nashīṭī, which is baseless after it has been established that he is al-Wāsiṭī. moreover, he was not the only one to narrate it, as it was also narrated by Bishr ibn Maʿādh al-ʿAqdī, who said: Abū ʿAbd Allāh narrated to us - a shaykh who descended..