have al-Bukhārī include him in "Ṣaḥīḥ" except as a suspended narration, and he also included him in "al-Adab al-Mufrad." Then there is a difference of opinion about him. Al-Dhahabī himself said in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ": "Abū Dāwūd considered him reliable, Ibn Maʿīn said he is weak in ḥadīth, and Aḥmad said he is acceptable in ḥadīth." This is what he relied on in "al-Mīzān," where he said: "And Abū ʿĀmir al-Khazzāz has about fifty ḥadīths, and as Aḥmad said, he is acceptable in ḥadīth." I say: he is ḥasan in ḥadīth, if Allāh wills, as Ibn ʿAdī said: "And in my view, there is nothing wrong with him, and I did not see any very objectionable ḥadīth from him." As for al-Ḥāfiẓ, he said in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful, but makes many mistakes." This is an inclination from him towards weakening him. And Allāh knows best. However, in any case, the ḥadīth is authentic, because he did not narrate it alone, as indicated by al-Ḥāfiẓ's words in "al-Fatḥ" (10/365) where he said after mentioning it from this perspective from the narration of al-Ḥākim and al-Bayhaqī in "al-Shuʿab": "And al-Bayhaqī also narrated it through the path of Muslim ibn Janādah from Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah from his father from ʿĀʾishah similarly, meaning the story, and he said: 'Strange.'" And through the path of Abū Salamah from ʿĀʾishah similarly, and its isnād is weak." I say: And the path of Abū Salamah was narrated by Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī in "Ādāb al-Ṣuḥbah" (24) from Muḥammad ibn Thamāl al-Ṣanʿānī, who narrated to us from ʿAbd al-Muʾmin ibn Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr from Abū Salamah with it. And I did not find a biography for Muḥammad ibn Thamāl and his teacher ʿAbd al-Muʾmin