I said: Ibn al-Turkmanī critiqued it, saying: "I said: He was not alone in narrating it; rather, ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Muʿādh al-Naṣībī also followed him, narrating it similarly from al-Darāwardī. This is how Abū ʿUmar recorded it in his two books (al-Tamhīd) and (al-Istidhkār)." I said: It seems that due to this corroboration, al-Ḥākim said afterwards: "Authentic according to the criteria of Muslim," and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. Otherwise, without this corroboration, the ḥadīth would not meet the criteria of Muslim because ʿUthmān ibn Muḥammad is not among his narrators, and moreover, he is criticized. Al-Dāraqutnī said: He is weak. ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq said: Most of his ḥadīth are likely to be erroneous. However, his ḥadīth may be strengthened by the corroboration of this al-Naṣībī, even though his status is unknown, as Ibn al-Qaṭṭān said and al-Dhahabī followed him. He is also not among the narrators of Muslim, so it is not according to his criteria either. However, they may be lenient in the corroborated narration in a way they are not with the solitary narration, saying in the former: It is according to the criteria of Muslim considering those above the corroborators, as is known. Therefore, we see that al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab in "Sharḥ al-Arbaʿīn al-Nawawiyyah" (219) did not criticize the ḥadīth due to this ʿUthmān or the corroboration of al-Naṣībī, but rather he criticized it due to their teacher. After the aforementioned statement of al-Bayhaqī, he said: "Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: There is no disagreement about Mālik sending this ḥadīth. He said: Nor with a chain from a sound source. Then he recorded it from the narration of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Muʿādh al-Naṣībī from al-Darāwardī as connected, and al-Darāwardī, Imām Aḥmad would weaken what he narrated from memory and would not consider it, and there is no doubt in preferring Mālik's statement over his."