as one of the supporting narrators, as mentioned by the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Tahdhīb." There is a difference of opinion regarding him; he was deemed reliable by Aḥmad, Ibn Maʿīn, Abū Khaythamah, al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Bazzār, while ʿAbd al-Ṣamad ibn ʿAbd al-Wārith considered him weak. Al-ʿUqaylī said: "He has ḥadīths that are not corroborated." Al-Dāraquṭnī stated: "He is considered." Al-Ḥākim Abū Aḥmad remarked: "He is not strong according to them." Ibn ʿAdī said: "I have not seen any objectionable ḥadīth from him, and I hope there is no harm in him." I say: It is noteworthy that the early and renowned scholars agreed on his reliability, and none of them considered him weak except ʿAbd al-Ṣamad ibn ʿAbd al-Wārith, who, despite his reliability, is not known for criticism and validation, as far as I know. The others who deemed him weak did not provide a reason for their criticism, except for al-ʿUqaylī's statement: "He has ḥadīths that are not corroborated." This is not a significant criticism, as many reliable narrators have similar statements made about them because they have narrations that they alone reported and were not corroborated. Yes, perhaps the man has some weakness and poor memory, which lowers his ḥadīth from the level of authenticity. For this reason, Muslim used him as a supporting narrator, and perhaps Ibn ʿAdī alludes to this by saying: "There is no harm in him." Likewise, al-Dhahabī's statement about him in "al-Mīzān": "Acceptable in ḥadīth."