despite his righteousness and devotion, and he was not accused [of falsehood], though some weakened his narrations only when he reported from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dīnār; Abū Dāwūd said: "His ḥadīths are consistent except those from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dīnār." Wakīʿ said: "He was trustworthy, and he narrated ḥadīths from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dīnār that were not corroborated." Ibn Maʿīn said in one narration: "His ḥadīth was weakened because he narrated strange reports from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dīnār." In another narration from him: "He is weak, but his softening ḥadīths are recorded." It seems to me from these statements that he is someone whose narrations can be used as supporting evidence, and perhaps al-Tirmidhī's statement about him being "weakened" hints at this, especially since he said after this ḥadīth: "A good ḥadīth, rare from this aspect." This is a clear indication from him that the ḥadīth is good, and his statement "weakened" does not mean he is entirely weak. Perhaps his basis for this is Aḥmad's statement in one narration about him: "There was nothing wrong with him, but he narrated strange ḥadīths, and when it comes to lawful and unlawful matters, we wanted people like this," and he clasped his hands. I said: Perhaps al-Tirmidhī's improvement mentioned is from this perspective: that it is not about lawful and unlawful matters, otherwise; it is from his known leniency, so it would have been better for him not to add to his statement: