7- Khālid ibn Khidāsh. 8- Muḥammad ibn Muʿādh al-ʿAnbarī. 9- Muʿāwiyah ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Shayṭā. 10- Dāwūd ibn Manṣūr al-Miṣṣīṣī. take this as a refined benefit you will not find elsewhere, and it is complete with the fact that Ibn Maʿīn's authentication of him indicates his profound knowledge of the men [in the field]. All praise is due to Allāh, by whose grace righteous deeds are completed. (Note): In all the aforementioned sources, it appears as: (Ṣadaqah ibn Abī Sahl), including the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad from Saʿīd ibn Abī al-Rabīʿ. The ḥāfiẓ considered this a mistake, saying in "al-Taʿjīl" (p. 350): "This is how it appeared to him! The correct version is: (Ṣadaqah Abū Sahl), and (Abū Sahl) is his kunyah, not his father's kunyah, and his father's name is (Sahl), so he is among those whose kunyah matches his father's name. His mentioned ḥadīth was included in "al-Musnad" and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Duʿāʾ", where it is mentioned as: "Ṣadaqah ibn Sahl al-Hanāʾī"! I say: This contradicts what is in the printed "al-Duʿāʾ" as previously stated, and what is in "al-Musnad" as well, and it also contradicts his earlier biography in al-Bukhārī, and the narration in "al-Awsaṭ" which explicitly refutes it: "Ṣadaqah ibn Abī Sahl Abū Sahl"; he is among those whose kunyah matches his father's kunyah, not his father's name. I am astonished at the ḥāfiẓ's certainty of the mentioned mistake despite its contradiction to these sources, and without mentioning his evidence for that! Yes, it did appear in the printed "Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān" as: (Ṣadaqah ibn Sahl), and I am certain of its error due to its contradiction to what I mentioned, as the kunyah marker: (Abū) was altered to: (ibn) or was omitted by the copyist, so the correct version would be: (Ṣadaqah Abū..