"It was narrated by Aḥmad, and in it is someone I do not know!" He is referring to (Ṣadaqah)! For he said (1/301): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ,' and he said: 'Ṣadaqah ibn Abī Sahl was unique in narrating it.'" I said: And I did not find anyone who mentioned him! I said: And this is one of his peculiarities; for he is mentioned by al-Bukhārī—as his statement has already been presented—and others who came after him, including Ibn Ḥibbān in his 'Thiqāt,' which al-Haythamī himself had arranged; then he forgot! Glory be to the One who does not forget. However, they proceeded to differentiate between Ṣadaqah ibn Abī Sahl al-Baṣrī—the narrator of this ḥadīth according to al-Bukhārī as previously mentioned—and the one before him, where he said: "Ṣadaqah Abū Sahl al-Hanāʾī, who heard from ʿUtbah, Ibn Sīrīn, and Abū ʿAmr al-Jamlī—ʿAbd al-Ṣamad said: he is al-Qaṭṭān." Mūsá narrated from him, and he is counted among the Baṣriyyīn." Ibn Abī Ḥātim followed him in making the distinction (2/1/431 and 434/1907), but in each of the two biographies, he has (Ṣadaqah Abū Sahl al-Hanāʾī)! His Yemeni editor examined it, and leaned towards what is correct in 'al-Tārīkh': "Ṣadaqah ibn Abī Sahl," meaning: al-Baṣrī. Likewise, he attributed it in 'al-Taʿjīl' to the biography of al-Bukhārī, and Ibn Ḥibbān also followed him in the distinction, mentioning both in the generation of (the Followers of the Followers) (6/468), and the ḥāfiẓ supported them, concluding his statement by saying: "al-Ḥusaynī's work implies that they are one; but that is not the case; for he mentioned in the biography