he is truthful but makes mistakes, and in his narration from Yaḥyá ibn Abī Kathīr there is inconsistency, and he did not have a book. (Note): Al-Haythamī criticized the first path from Abū al-Dardāʾ by Ibn ʿAyyāsh; he said (2/212): "It was narrated by al-Bazzār and al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr', and in it is Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh, and there is criticism about him." I say: this criticism is unfounded; as previously mentioned, his ḥadīth is authentic when narrating from the people of Shām, and the criticism is only when he narrates from others, as stated by the prominent imams like Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī, and others. As for Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī, he followed up in his commentary on "Kashf al-Astār" by saying: "I said: what we have before us includes Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl, not Ismāʿīl"! I say: rather, it includes Ismāʿīl as well; the shaykh was misled by adhering to the apparent isnād before him and did not notice the omission that occurred in it, and I do not know whether it is the same in the original on which it was printed, or if it was presented to him in this printed form, so he commented based on what was presented to him?! In either case, both are problematic; he should have realized that Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl did not meet Rāshid ibn Dāwūd al-Ṣanʿānī, or at least they did not mention any narration from him about him, but only from his father Ismāʿīl, and they did not mention any narration from Muḥammad except from his father. This alone should have been enough to alert him if he were truly a meticulous researcher! Al-Haythamī did not criticize it with this Muḥammad because—Allāh knows best—he is supported by Abū al-Yamān in al-Ṭabarānī's "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" as well. It is unfortunate that the volume containing the ḥadīths of Abū al-Dardāʾ has not been printed yet so we can verify what I mentioned. And Allāh knows best.