"there is nothing wrong with his ḥadīth." al-Dhahabī included him in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" along with al-Bukhārī's statement about him. al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "Truthful but makes mistakes." I say: His case is such that the judgment on his ḥadīth wavers between being good and weak, but al-ʿUqaylī said: "This ḥadīth was mentioned to Imām Aḥmad, and he rejected it, saying: It is only mawqūf." He mentioned it in the biography of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Muḥammad, who is al-Darāwardī, and perhaps the criticism of the narrator from him, who is al-Jārī, is more appropriate. Indeed, he was not alone in narrating it, for Ibn Saʿd said in "al-Ṭabaqāt" (1/456 - Beirut edition): Muḥammad ibn Salīm al-ʿAbdī informed us, al-Darāwardī narrated it to me. I say: But this Muḥammad ibn Salīm is someone whose corroboration is not rejoiced over, due to his severe weakness, as Ibn Maʿīn said: "He is not trustworthy, he lies in ḥadīth," and Ibn Abī Ḥātim weakened him (3/2/275) from his father. The ḥadīth has a supporting narration reported by Abū Shaybah al-Wāsiṭī from Ṭarīf ibn Shihāb from al-Ḥasan, who mentioned it as marfūʿ. It was recorded by Ibn Saʿd. And this, despite its being mursal, for Abū Shaybah al-Wāsiṭī, whose name is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq, is weak as al-Ḥāfiẓ decisively stated in "al-Taqrīb."