"and Abū Ḥātim said: there is no harm in him." This addition is an error on his part, for Abū Ḥātim said that about the narrator who followed the one being discussed, but regarding this one, his son only reported his weakening. As for his statement: "no one spoke about him except..." it is a rejected reasoning concerning the weak narrators because none of their statements suggest that, rather they indicate the opposite. You may review it in "al-Tahdhīb," and thus the ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "truthful, accused of leaning towards rejection, and he also made mistakes." I said: the reasoning based on his narration from the weak is in reference to al-Bukhārī, but for the others, the reasoning for them is poor memory. And Allāh knows best. Ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs was contradicted, for al-Ṭabarānī also reported it through the route of Abū Mālik al-Nakhaʿī—whose name is ʿAbd al-Malik ibn al-Ḥusayn—from Ḥajjāj from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Tharwān from Huzayl ibn Sharḥabīl from ʿAbd Allāh who said: "The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) would combine Maghrib and ʿIshāʾ, delaying this one to its last time and hastening this one to its earliest time." Abū Mālik was weakened by al-Haythamī, and the ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "abandoned." As for Ḥajjāj, it appears he is Ibn Arṭāʾah, and he is known for tadlīs. Then al-Ṭabarānī reported it through the route of Ibn Abī Laylá from Abū Qays from Huzayl with it in a shortened form, in the wording: