at the door and the doors. I said: Is he reliable? He remained silent as if he approved of him. al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mīzān": "Ibn Maʿīn considered him reliable, and Aḥmad said: I am hesitant about him. Abū Ḥātim said: He is acceptable, and Ibn ʿAdī mentioned him (p. 46/2) and listed three unusual ḥadīths for him. al-ʿUqaylī mentioned him in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" and said: "He is not followed in his ḥadīth." Among what was criticized about him is the ḥadīth of ʿItāb ibn Bashīr... (I said: so he mentioned it). al-Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq said: Thābit is not used as evidence, and Abū al-Ḥasan ibn al-Qaṭṭān debated him on his statement and said: al-ʿUqaylī's statement also shows bias against him, saying: This only applies to someone not known for reliability at all, but as for one known for it, his solitary reports do not harm him unless they are frequent. I said: As for one known to be reliable, yes, but as for one who is considered reliable and someone like Imām Aḥmad hesitates about him and Abū Ḥātim was asked? He said: His ḥadīth is acceptable, so we do not elevate him to the rank of reliability, and his solitary reports are considered objectionable, so the opinion of al-ʿUqaylī and ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq is preferred. I said: This is al-Dhahabī's opinion in the mentioned disagreement, and al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar disagreed with him and supported Ibn al-Qaṭṭān, saying in "al-Tahdhīb": "And he is truthful, for such a case does not harm him except when contradicting the reliable ones, making his ḥadīth anomalous then." I said: I believe the correct view is with al-Ḥāfiẓ, because Aḥmad's hesitation about Thābit is not the same as if he had weakened him. If he had weakened him, it would not harm him with the endorsement of those who considered him reliable, as it is an unexplained criticism, thus not considered. How then, when he did not explicitly declare his weakness, and perhaps for this reason al-Suyūṭī indicated its goodness in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr," and its commentator al-Munāwī said: "Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: There is criticism in its chain, and al-Zayn al-ʿIrāqī said in "Sharḥ al-Tirmidhī": Its chain is good, its men are the men of al-Bukhārī, and it includes Thābit ibn ʿAjlān... The author did well by limiting himself to considering it good. Ibn al-Qaṭṭān said: The ḥadīth has a chain to ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather that is authentic."