I said: He did not authenticate it, even though all its narrators are trustworthy, the narrators of Muslim, because Saʿd al-Anṣārī is disputed. Aḥmad said: "Weak." Similarly, Ibn Maʿīn said in one narration. And in another, he said: "Righteous." Al-Nasāʾī said: "Not strong." Ibn Saʿd said: "He was trustworthy but narrated little." Al-Tirmidhī said: "They criticized him for his memory." Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (4/298) and said: "He used to make mistakes." I said: For this reason, al-Dhahabī included him in his aforementioned treatise "al-Mutakallam fīhim" (111/141), so someone like him has good ḥadīth, if Allāh wills, and he is a good witness. It was also narrated by al-Sarrāj in "Musnad" (Q 120/1) and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (7/184-185) through other routes from Saʿīd with a shortened version. Al-Haythamī said (2/155): "Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in 'al-Kabīr,' and its narrators are the narrators of (the authentic collections)." It has another witness, but it is not something to rejoice over due to the severe weakness of its narrator, who is ʿAmr ibn