and Abū Maʿshar, whose name is Najīḥ al-Sindī, is weak, while the rest of its narrators are reliable. From this, you learn that the statement of al-Haythamī (2/297), following al-Mundhirī (4/164): "It was narrated by Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr' and 'al-Awsaṭ', and its isnād is good." I say: it is not good due to what you know of the weakness of Abū Maʿshar along with his contradiction in its isnād. They also said regarding the ḥadīth of Jābir, which they attributed to al-Bazzār as well - and I did not find it in his additions -: "The men of Aḥmad are the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ." The ḥadīth has supporting evidence from the narration of Abū ʿAmārah Qays, the freed slave of Sawdah bint ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm, from his father, from his grandfather, in a marfūʿ form, with the addition: "Then when he leaves him, he continues to delve into it until he returns." It was narrated by Ibn Abī al-Dunyā (86/2 - 87/1) and al-ʿUqaylī in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ" (p. 358). Abū ʿAmārah was severely criticized by al-Bukhārī, who said: "There is a concern about him." As for Ibn Ḥibbān, he mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt", and perhaps this is what al-Haythamī relied on in his statement after he presented the ḥadīth (2/297): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr' and 'al-Awsaṭ', and its men are trustworthy"! As for al-Mundhirī, he said: "Its isnād to al-Ḥasan is closer"! The ḥadīth was also narrated by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr in "al-Tamhīd" (24/273) and he authenticated it