such was said! (ʿĀʾidh ibn Sharīḥ) And I have not known anyone who declared him trustworthy, not even Ibn Ḥibbān. Al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mughnī": "I have not seen any weakening or authentication for them, except Abū Ḥātim's statement: 'There is weakness in his ḥadīth.'" I said: "And he is not a proof." I said: A group narrated from him as mentioned in "al-Jarḥ" (3/2/16), so it is possible to use him as supporting evidence, considering that the proof is established by the narration of the two trustworthy narrators, Abū Khālid—who is al-Aḥmar—Sulaymān al-Aḥmar, and al-Faḍl ibn Mūsá, who corroborated him from Ḥumayd from Anas. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Dirāyah" (2/129): "This is a good corroboration for the narration of Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar. And Allāh knows best." This strongly indicates the rejection of Abū Ḥātim's previous statement, and it is deserving of that due to what has been previously explained. He subtly indicated his rejection of it by saying in "al-Talkhīṣ" (1/230): "and weakened it." He did not feel comfortable quoting his exact statement due to its severity and distance from correctness. However, he mixed between different paths, saying after he extracted the ḥadīth from the narration of the authors of the Sunan and others from Abū Saʿīd and others: "And from Anas similarly. It was narrated by al-Dāraqutnī, and in it is al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Aswad, and there is discussion about him." There is another path mentioned by Ibn Abī Ḥātim in "al-ʿIlal" from his father, and he weakened it." I said: You have learned from our extraction that Abū Ḥātim's path is the same as al-Dāraqutnī's; both of them extracted it from the path of Muḥammad ibn al-Ṣalt, so take note