"its chain of narration is authentic, for Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Khuzāʾī and Abū al-Malīḥ al-Fārisī were not mentioned with any criticism; they are merely considered among the unknowns due to the scarcity of ḥadīth." This is what he said, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him, but there is an issue concerning Abū al-Malīḥ, for he is not unknown. How could he be, when a group of reliable narrators reported from him, as mentioned in "al-Tahdhīb"? Among them are: Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ, Marwān ibn Muʿāwiyah al-Fazārī, Ḥātim ibn Ismāʿīl, and Abū ʿĀṣim al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Mukhallad al-Shaybānī. All of these narrated this ḥadīth from him, so how could he be unknown, especially since Ibn Maʿīn said about him: "Reliable," and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (6/475) and the ḥāfiẓ deemed him trustworthy. As for his teacher, Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Khuzāʾī, placing him among the unknowns is appropriate for him, because they did not mention any narrator from him except this Abū al-Malīḥ, except that Abū Zurʿah said about him: "There is no harm in him," as mentioned by Ibn Abī Ḥātim in "al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl" (4/2/393) and he agreed with it. Therefore, the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr said in "al-Tafsīr" (7/309) following the ḥadīth, having cited it through Aḥmad with one of his chains: "Aḥmad is unique in narrating it, and this chain is unobjectionable." This is exactly what I had said in the other series under ḥadīth (21), and I mentioned it on that occasion, saying then: "It is a good ḥadīth." This confused some of the students from our Kuwaiti brothers, and they attributed to me that I authenticated the ḥadīth. In reality, I only deemed it good as I mentioned earlier, and I even refuted al-Ḥākim's authentication of it under the aforementioned ḥadīth, as other things were attributed to me that are not appropriate to mention here, and I will write to him about that, if Allāh wills