(6/208), and they remained silent! Even though he has it through a different route than Ibn Lahīʿah with a good isnād and strong corroboration from ʿĀmir ibn Saʿd, as will be explained! al-Bukhārī said in the previously mentioned section of "al-Tārīkh": And Ibn Wahb said: ʿAmr informed us that Sulaymān ibn Ḥumayd told him that ʿĀmir ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ—Sulaymān said: I do not know him except—on the authority of his father from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). Abū Nuʿaym connected it in "Ṣifat al-Jannah" (1/80/57) through the route of Ḥarmalah ibn Yaḥyá: Ibn Wahb narrated it to us. I said: This isnād is good; its men are trustworthy and well-known, the men of Muslim; except for Sulaymān ibn Ḥumayd—who is al-Muzanī—, Ibn Ḥibbān deemed him trustworthy (6/385), and included him in his "Ṣaḥīḥ", and seven trustworthy narrators reported from him. Ibn ʿAsākir translated him in "Tārīkh Dimashq" (22/220-222) and mentioned that he was a Madanī who resided in Damascus, and Ibn Ḥibbān included him in his "Ṣaḥīḥ". Refer to "Taysīr al-Intifāʿ". These facts were hidden from the brother (ʿAlī Riḍā); so he asserted that he is unknown! The other route: al-Bukhārī also said: Muḥammad ibn al-Muthanná said: Wahb ibn Jarīr narrated to us: My father narrated to us: I heard Yaḥyá ibn Ayyūb from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb from ʿUmar from Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)... and he mentioned it. I said: This isnād is also good, its men are trustworthy, the men of the two Shaykhs! Except for ʿUmar—who is the son of Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ—, al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mīzān": "He is not accused in himself; but he participated in the battle against al-Ḥusayn and committed actions." I said: Nevertheless, al-ʿAjlī deemed him trustworthy. And al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "Truthful and reliable."