" this ḥadīth is not authentic, for Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Atash is criticized; Ibn Ḥammād said: he is abandoned in ḥadīth. And Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ziyād, Ṭalḥah ibn Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar said about him: he used to lie." I say: this criticism holds no value whatsoever, for two reasons: first, they were not the only ones who narrated the ḥadīth as we have previously mentioned, and it is astonishing and strange that this was hidden from Ibn al-Jawzī or at least some of it... and it is in "Musnad Aḥmad" with an authentic chain as previously mentioned. The second reason is that Ibn Atash's status does not reach the level of being abandoned, for he was deemed reliable by a group, including Abū Ḥātim, and the opposition of Ibn Ḥammād—who is al-Dūlābī, the author of "al-Kuná"—is questionable, as mentioned in "al-Mīzān" and "al-Lisān," so his criticism does not stand against the endorsement of Abū Ḥātim, especially since this is considered from the strict ones! Likewise, what is said about al-Azdī's statement regarding him is similar to al-Dūlābī's, for he is also criticized. Yes, al-Nasāʾī agreed with them as mentioned in "al-Tahdhīb," but this was refuted by the ḥāfiẓ Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ, who said: "He is reliable, and al-Nasāʾī's statement about him is not accepted." The ḥāfiẓ said subsequently: "because Aḥmad and ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī only narrate from someone who is accepted, with Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ's reasoning in this." Therefore, the ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "truthful, but with some leniency." Similarly, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Ziyād, as al-Dhahabī and al-ʿAsqalānī said about him: "he is truthful, those who accused him of lying were mistaken, but he is not a primary source."