"he narrates from al-Aʿmash, and Maʿmar ibn Sulaymān narrated from him. He was among those who narrated from trustworthy narrators what does not resemble the ḥadīth of reliable narrators, and he was unique in narrating things that, when heard by someone skilled in ḥadīth, are recognized as being distorted." I said: So, for someone about whom such severe criticism is mentioned, the soul does not feel at ease using his report as evidence when he is alone in narrating it, let alone when there is contradiction. Even if some have deemed him trustworthy, including Ibn Ḥibbān himself (7/56), it is contradictory. As for the wording of the translation, it is, in my view, good, if Allāh the Exalted wills, due to the corroboration mentioned by al-Ṭabarānī. For all the narrators in its isnād are trustworthy, the men of al-Bukhārī, except for Aḥmad ibn Rushdīn, who is Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥajjāj ibn Rushdīn al-Miṣrī, who was both deemed trustworthy and accused of lying!! (1) You can find what was said about him in "al-Mīzān" and "al-Lisān." From this, you learn of al-Haythamī's leniency in extracting the wording of al-Bazzār by saying (10/392): "It was narrated by al-Bazzār, and the wording is his, and by Aḥmad in abridged form, and by Abū Yaʿlá in a similar manner, and by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ,' and one of al-Ṭabarānī's isnāds has men of (the authentic collection)!" I said: So he remained silent about the isnād of al-Bazzār, which he should not have done, and he declared the isnād of al-Ṭabarānī to have men of "the authentic collection," and you have known what is in it, and he and al-Mundhirī often do this!! Then, the ḥadīth was narrated by Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth from Ashʿath ibn Sawwār from Ashʿath from Abū Saʿīd in a similar manner. It was extracted by al-Bazzār, and he said: