- Khālid ibn Khidāsh.
- Muḥammad ibn Muʿādh al-ʿAnbarī.
- Muʿāwiyah ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Shayṭā.
- Dāwūd ibn Manṣūr al-Miṣṣīṣī.
So take this as a carefully verified finding that you will not find elsewhere. Completing it is the fact that Ibn Maʿīn’s declaring him trustworthy indicates his profound knowledge of narrators. Praise be to Allah, by Whose favor righteous deeds are brought to completion.
Note: All the aforementioned sources give: “Ṣadaqah ibn Abī Sahl,” including ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad’s narration from Saʿīd ibn Abī al-Rabīʿ. Al-Ḥāfiẓ deemed this erroneous and said in al-Taʿjīl (p. 350):
“This is how it appears in his version! The correct reading is: from Ṣadaqah Abū Sahl. Abū Sahl is his kunyah, not his father’s kunyah; his father’s name is Sahl. Thus, his kunyah coincides with his father’s name. His aforementioned hadith was recorded in al-Musnad, and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Duʿāʾ...”
He then stated that it occurs there as: “Ṣadaqah ibn Sahl al-Hanāʾī”!
I say: This contradicts what is found in the printed edition of al-Duʿāʾ, as stated above, as well as what is found in al-Musnad. It likewise contradicts his aforementioned biographical entry in al-Bukhārī and the narration in al-Awsaṭ, which contains an explicit refutation of him: “Ṣadaqah ibn Abī Sahl, Abū Sahl.” He is therefore one whose kunyah coincides with his father’s kunyah, not with his father’s name. I am amazed that al-Ḥāfiẓ asserted the aforementioned error so categorically, despite its contradiction by these sources and without mentioning his evidence for doing so!
It is true that the printed edition of Ibn Ḥibbān’s al-Thiqāt has: “Ṣadaqah ibn Sahl.” But I am certain that this is erroneous because it contradicts what I have mentioned: the kunyah particle “Abū” was corrupted into “ibn,” or omitted by the copyist. Thus, the correct reading is: “Ṣadaqah Abū