some went to great lengths in criticizing him, as Aḥmad said in "al-ʿIlal wa-al-Maʿrifah" (1/281/1813): "He lies, his ḥadīths are fabricated, he is nothing." Al-Bukhārī referred to Aḥmad's statement about him in "al-Tārīkh" (1/1/214). He also said in "al-Tārīkh al-Ṣaghīr": "Aḥmad declared him a liar." Al-Fasawī mentioned in "Tārīkh" (3/46) from ʿAlī, who is Ibn al-Madīnī, who said: "I have abandoned the ḥadīth of Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim Abū Ibrāhīm, I do not narrate from him." Ibn Ḥibbān himself said in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" (2/288): "He was among those who narrated from reliable narrators what was not from their ḥadīths, and he attributed to trustworthy narrators what they did not narrate. It is not permissible to use him as evidence or to narrate from him in any case, Ibn Ḥanbal declared him a liar." I said: It is astonishing how he did not mention the name of anyone who narrated from his teacher Muṭīʿ al-Ghazāl from the people of Kūfah except for this accused person?! I said: He is the defect in this ḥadīth, and as for Ibn Ḥibbān's statement: "The report is not authentic from another route." This is questionable because it has come through routes that strengthen each other, with a supporting witness in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī," and here is the explanation: First: from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib who said: and he mentioned it. It was recorded by al-Bayhaqī (3/198) through the route of Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ghurāb: my father narrated to us from Abān ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Bajalī from ʿAdī ibn Thābit from him