I said: He is reliable, one of al-Bukhārī's men, but Muḍaffar ibn Faḍālah is weak, and he is Abū Mālik al-Baṣrī, the brother of Mubārak. And Mūsá ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥayyān, thus it is in the original with a dot below: and likewise in "al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl" (4/1/161): "Ḥayyān" and it is also in "al-Mīzān" Khānajī edition, which is consistent with what is in "al-Lisān" but there was a typographical error, and it appeared in "al-Mīzān" Bajāwī edition as "Jiyān" due to reliance on a copy of "al-Mīzān" that explicitly corrects this. And it is his statement: "And he marked it with a jīm - in places - Ibn al-Azhar al-Ṣarīfīnī, so he erred." This was confirmed by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, who followed it by saying: "And it is known with the neglected [dot]." Then Ibn Ḥayyān, al-Dhahabī said: "Abū Zurʿah weakened him, but he was not abandoned." However, he was not alone in this as indicated by the aforementioned statement of al-Ṭabarānī, and as will be verified. And Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sālim, I did not know him, and al-Haythamī criticized it by saying (3/158): "It was narrated by al-Bazzār and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr' and 'al-Awsaṭ', and in it is Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sālim, and I did not find a biography, and the rest of its narrators are reliable." Thus it appeared as "Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh" enlarged, and likewise it appeared in "al-Awsaṭ" as previously, and also in "Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn" (1/102/2). And it appeared in "Tahdhīb al-Mizzī" among the narrators from