"unknown, only Yaʿlá ibn ʿAṭāʾ narrated from him." Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "acceptable." I say: meaning when corroborated, as he stated in the introduction, and he was corroborated as will be mentioned. Al-Dhahabī said about him in "al-Kāshif": "trusted"! I say: this indicates that Ibn Ḥibbān considered him trustworthy, but his trustworthiness here is not reliable because he considers trustworthy those who are unknown. This is a subtle convention I have recognized from him in this book, so it should not be understood that he is trustworthy according to him, as some beginners in this field might mistakenly believe. Ibn Ḥibbān included him among the followers in his "Thiqāt" (5/496) based solely on the narration of Yaʿlá from him, and he mentioned the previous disagreement regarding "ʿAdas," saying: "I hope the correct [name] is with ḥāʾ." He also narrated another ḥadīth from Abū Razīn regarding the vision, which is included in "al-Ẓilāl" (459), but he did not include this ḥadīth, which is surprising as he differed from the group despite it being according to his criteria. What I fear most is that what diverted him from it is that it explicitly affirms the attribute of laughter for Allāh Almighty in a way that cannot be interpreted, as he did with the ḥadīth "Allāh laughed at two men, one of whom killed the other and both are in Paradise," for I have seen him interpret it in a contrived and ugly manner, contrary to the method of the predecessors in affirmation with transcendence. So refer to his words if you wish