by the narration of a group of trustworthy narrators, and this Ṭalq is included among them, along with what follows in agreement with him, and no criticism or endorsement is mentioned about him. Ibn Ḥibbān included him in his book "al-Thiqāt" (8/252) from the narration of one of the trustworthy narrators, Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd was uncertain about his teacher; whether it was (Shaqīq) or (Zur)?! This does not affect the authenticity of the ḥadīth, as it is a transition from one trustworthy narrator to another, as Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir said in his commentary on "al-Musnad" (5/317). Moreover, the more likely opinion according to me is that it is (Zur ibn Ḥubaysh), as this has been reported through two other chains from his son Zakarīyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh: one of them is from Yaḥyá ibn Abī Zakarīyā: "Zakarīyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd al-Ṣahbānī narrated to us with it." Al-Bazzār recorded it (4/235/1848 - al-Baḥr al-Zakhkhār) in a similar manner. He said: "It is not narrated with this wording except from ʿAbd Allāh with this isnād." The other is from Yaḥyá al-Ḥammānī: "Zakarīyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣahbānī narrated to us with it." Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (10/163/10212). I said: Al-Ḥammānī and Yaḥyá ibn Abī Zakarīyā—whom I suspect to be al-Ghasānī (1)—both have some weakness, but one strengthens the other, making it suitable to prefer their combined narration. And Allāh knows best. Al-Haythamī said (10/51): "It was narrated by Aḥmad, al-Bazzār, and al-Ṭabarānī, and the men of Aḥmad are trustworthy." I said: This narration of Aḥmad was missed by a group of authors in the field of narrators, starting from