the second: the man is known, but there is disagreement about him. Abū Zurʿah said: "There is no harm in him." Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "Thiqāt" as previously noted, but he contradicted himself by including him in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" as well (1/301), saying: "He narrates things that do not resemble the ḥadīth of the reliable narrators, and it is not permissible to use him as evidence except in agreement." Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful, but with errors." the third: al-Haythamī also contradicted himself regarding him. I saw earlier that he authenticated his narrators without exception, then I saw him say in another place (2/178): "al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in 'al-Awsaṭ' and it includes ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zurayq—thus—al-Azdī said: his ḥadīth is not authentic." The commentator on "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ" (1/50 and 52) imitated him as usual, for the man has no knowledge in this field, and all he burdens the footnotes and comments with is mere transmission that any student of knowledge can do! It seems to me that al-Haythamī, after mentioning this from al-Azdī, realized what was previously verified that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ruzayq is Ruzayq Abū ʿAbd Allāh, and based on that, he authenticated his narrators due to the authentication of Abū Zurʿah and Ibn Ḥibbān, and perhaps he did not notice Ibn Ḥibbān's contradiction regarding him. And Allāh knows best. the fourth: the correct wording in the text of the ḥadīth is "leaning" for two reasons: the first is that it is so in the version previously referred to from "al-Awsaṭ." The second is that it also appears in "Ḍuʿafāʾ Ibn Ḥibbān" and in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr" by al-Suyūṭī