I said: someone like him is ḥasan in ḥadīth, especially if corroborated as here. Secondly: ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān—who is al-Ṭarāʾifī; he was deemed reliable by Ibn Maʿīn and others, and those who criticized him did not mention any criticism that would take precedence over the endorsement. In fact, some mentioned what indicates weakness from some of his teachers, such as al-Bukhārī's statement: "He narrates from weak people." Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ did not weaken him; he said in "al-Taqrīb," summarizing what can be inferred from the collective statements of the ḥadīth scholars about him: "Truthful, narrates extensively from the weak and unknown, and was weakened because of that to the extent that Ibn Numayr accused him of lying, yet he was deemed reliable by Ibn Maʿīn." I said: he is also ḥasan in ḥadīth if those above him are authoritative, as is the case here. Thirdly: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Mufaḍḍal al-Ḥarrānī. This is how it appears in the original, and likewise in "Mukhtaṣar al-Zawāʾid" (1/360/589). It seems that it is from al-Bazzār, or al-Haythamī followed him in this, and the correct name is (Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Faḍl), as mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī in the biography of (al-Ṭarāʾifī) in "Tahdhīb," and al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī in "al-Tārīkh" (4/243) narrated from a group of trustworthy ḥadīth preservers about him—like Ibn Ṣāʿid and others—then said: "And I know nothing of his condition except good." Al-Samʿānī transmitted it in the lineage (al-Kuzbarānī), and it was altered in "al-Tārīkh" to "al-Kurayzānī"; so it should be corrected