"and its isnād is acceptable." His teacher, al-Haythamī, said in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (4/226): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and its narrators are trustworthy." Al-Ḥāfiẓ attributed it in the biography of Ḥanẓalah in "al-Iṣābah" to al-Ḥasan ibn Sufyān, al-Bāwardī, and Ibn al-Sakan through the route of Salm ibn Qutaybah. The ḥadīth has other routes which I have documented in "al-Irwāʾ" (5/79-83), where I explained its defects and concluded that it is authentic when considered collectively, especially since among them is a sound ḥadīth attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās, and another elevated ḥadīth deemed good by al-Nawawī in "al-Riyāḍ" (1808, my verification). However, I was opposed in this by one of the inexperienced beginners in this field, who included it in the "weak ḥadīths" he extracted from the book "al-Riyāḍ" and placed them at the end of his edition. He used the tool of demolition on authentic ḥadīths without knowledge or guidance, as he has no expertise in this art. He tends to focus on criticizing the narrator and his ḥadīths, no matter how minor the criticism, without opposing it with the authentication, or following those whose ḥadīth is strengthened by scholars from both the early and later periods. I even saw him sometimes ignore or deny authentication to maintain his criticism and weakening. His method of weakening indicates that he does not adopt the ḥadīth known among the muḥaddithīn as ṣaḥīḥ li-ghayrih, let alone ḥasan li-ghayrih, which results from strengthening a weak ḥadīth with supporting evidence and routes. Al-Tirmidhī refers to this as "ḥadīth ḥasan" only, without saying "ḥadīth ḥasan gharīb," as he stated at the end of his book. This reminded me of the misguidance of one who claims knowledge and attacks the sunnah and authentic ḥadīths with his whims. He said—ignorantly—in his commentary on "Dafʿ Shubah al-Tashbīh" (p. 64): "The decisive statement is that it is not permissible to authenticate ḥadīths with supporting evidence at all!"