to his grandfather, Hishām, and giving him the kunyah Abū ʿAlī. He likewise referred to him by this kunyah in al-Jarḥ (1/2/44), where he said:

“An inhabitant of Ramla.” He then said: “He was considered truthful; I wrote from him in Ramla.”

He named his grandfather as al-Sakan.

It seems that al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar was unaware of this, for he said:

“Ibn ʿAsākir said in al-Nubal: ‘I believe he is Ibn Yaḥyā ibn al-Sakan, who resided in Ramla. If so, he died in 257 AH.’ I say: Ibn al-Sakan is very weak, and he is certainly not this man.”

I say: I do not know what basis al-Ḥāfiẓ had for this objection—especially when it contradicts Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s statement concerning him, while he omitted to mention him in Lisān al-Mīzān. Nor have I seen him in al-Mīzān, let alone in al-Tahdhīb or its subsidiary works.

Al-Dhahabī included this al-Ruzzī in al-Kāshif and said: “Trustworthy, a ḥāfiẓ.” He said something similar in al-Mīzān, but did not list Ibn al-Sakan separately—as was his practice—in order to distinguish him from others resembling him in lineage or otherwise. And Allah knows best.

He was corroborated by ʿUthmān ibn Ṭālūt, who said: “Muḥammad ibn Bilāl narrated to us,” with the same chain.

Ibn ʿAdī recorded it in al-Kāmil (6/133): “Muḥammad narrated to us: ʿUthmān narrated to us,” with the same chain.

I say: Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned this ʿUthmān ibn Ṭālūt in al-Thiqāt (8/454), identifying him as al-Jahdarī al-Baṣrī. He narrated from Abū ʿĀṣim and the people of his town. He had a stronger memory than his father, and died young in 234 AH, before he could fully benefit from his knowledge.