"his Tafsīr" (14/18), al-Ḥākim (2/353), and al-Bayhaqī also from other routes from Nūḥ ibn Qays. al-Ḥākim said: "The isnād is authentic, and ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī said: 'No one criticized Nūḥ ibn Qays al-Ṭāḥī with evidence,'" and al-Dhahabī agreed, saying: "He is truthful, and Muslim included him." He said in "al-Mīzān": "His condition is sound." I say: Neither he nor al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Tahdhīb" reported any weakening of him from the imams, except for a narration from Ibn Maʿīn, which is not authentic from him because Abū Dāwūd said: "It reached me from Yaḥyá that he weakened him," and it is opposed by ʿUthmān al-Dārimī's narration from him that he is trustworthy. And this, with its authenticity, is in agreement with the statement of Aḥmad and the rest of the imams who deemed him trustworthy. It is the main reliance. And if you understand this, the ḥadīth was criticized for being mursal, as al-Tirmidhī said afterward: "Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān narrated this ḥadīth from ʿAmr ibn Mālik from Abū al-Jawzāʾ similarly, without mentioning 'from Ibn ʿAbbās,' and this is more likely to be correct than the ḥadīth of Nūḥ." al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr relied on this in "his Tafsīr" (5/12-13), saying: "A very strange ḥadīth with severe objection." This criticism is nothing in my view, for several reasons. First: The mursal nature of Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān's narration and his contradiction to Nūḥ ibn Qays does not harm, because if he were of the same level of trustworthiness as Nūḥ, the well-known principle in the science of terminology would apply: the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted. How, then, when he is less trustworthy? For although he is among the narrators of Muslim, he was weakened by more than one of the imams, including al-Bukhārī, who said: