"he was born in the year (185)." And he died in the year (235). And above them are the men of the two Shaykhs. Al-Faḍl ibn Mūsá Abū Khālid followed up, as recorded by al-Dāraquṭnī in "Sunan" (1/300/12), and Ibn Abī Ḥātim in "al-ʿIlal" (1/135/374) as a suspended narration from the path of Muḥammad ibn al-Ṣalt: Abū Khālid narrated to us with it. Al-Zaylaʿī mentioned in "Naṣb al-Rāyah" (1/320) from al-Dāraquṭnī that he said: "Its isnād is entirely reliable." I said: This Muḥammad ibn al-Ṣalt is Abū Jaʿfar al-Kūfī al-Aṣamm, trustworthy without dispute and among the teachers of al-Bukhārī. If it were not for the fact that the narrator from him (al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Aswad al-ʿAjlī) in al-Dāraquṭnī's narration is weak, I would have strengthened its isnād. Perhaps this is what led Abū Ḥātim to say after the ḥadīth: "This is a lie with no basis, and Muḥammad ibn al-Ṣalt is reliable, I have written from him." And he said about him in what his son narrated from him in "al-Jarḥ" (2/1/56): "Truthful." However, it is not clear to me the reason for declaring the ḥadīth a lie despite its isnād being free from a liar. I know that just as a liar may speak the truth, as in the well-known ḥadīth, likewise a truthful person may lie as in the ḥadīth of Abū al-Sanābil, meaning he may mistakenly say something contrary to reality. But by Allāh, I do not know—and I do not think I will ever know—that it can be said about a ḥadīth of a truthful person: "A lie with no basis," and there is nothing in its text that is objectionable