but it appears there as: “from Abū Salmān al-Muʾadhdhin,” without the doubly dotted letter between the lām and the mīm; and this is correct. Al-Mizzī mentioned him in al-Tahdhīb, saying: “Abū Salmān al-Muʾadhdhin: al-Ḥajjāj’s muʾadhdhin, whose name was Yazīd ibn ʿAbd Allāh. He narrated from Zayd ibn Arqam, and al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUtaybah, ʿUthmān ibn al-Mughīrah al-Thaqafī, and Misʿar ibn Kidām narrated from him. Among his high-chain narrations is that which he informed us of…” He then cited the hadith through the route mentioned above, and said: “We have mentioned it in order to distinguish between the two.” That is, this Abū Salmān al-Muʾadhdhin is someone other than Abū Sulaymān al-Muʾadhdhin—whose name is said to have been Hammām—whom he had mentioned immediately before this. This is an important point that al-Dhahabī did not mention in his book al-Kāshif.

I say: He is therefore Abū Salmān, not Abū Sulaymān, and consequently he is not Zayd ibn Wahb, as al-Ḥāfiẓ supposed. Rather, he is Yazīd ibn ʿAbd Allāh, as al-Mizzī stated definitively. Supporting this is the fact that al-Ṭabarānī included the hadith under the biographical entry, “Abū Salmān al-Muʾadhdhin, from Zayd ibn Arqam,” and cited beneath it three hadiths, this being one of them.

However, in his work at 4985, it appears through the narration of Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAmr al-Bajalī: Abū Isrāʾīl al-Malāʾī narrated to us, from al-Ḥakam, from Abū Sulaymān Zayd ibn Wahb, from Zayd ibn Arqam… This is the narration to which al-Ḥāfiẓ referred and upon which he relied in definitively identifying him as Abū Sulaymān Zayd ibn Wahb. What escaped him was that it contains Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAmr al-Bajalī, who is weak; Abū Ḥātim and al-Dāraquṭnī declared him weak, as al-Ḥāfiẓ himself mentioned in al-Lisān.

The fourth route: from Yaḥyā ibn Juʿdah, from Zayd ibn Arqam, who said: “We went out with the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, until we reached Ghadīr Khumm…” The hadith is similar to the first route, and it contains: