the jurist is among the teachers of Imām al-Shāfiʿī, and some have deemed him trustworthy, including Ibn Ḥibbān, though he pointed to his weak memory, saying in "Thiqāt" (7/448): "He makes mistakes occasionally." I said: someone like him is used as evidence at least in corroboration. I have found a strong corroborator for him, as ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Awaysī said: al-Mājishūn ibn Abī Salamah narrated to us from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah with it. It was recorded by al-Ḥākim (3/83), and from him by al-Bayhaqī, and through his route by Ibn ʿAsākir (6/719), and al-Ḥākim said: "Authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs." Al-Dhahabī agreed with him. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Fatḥ" (7/48): "Al-Ḥākim recorded it with an authentic isnād." And it is as he said, for al-Mājishūn is ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Salamah al-Madanī; a trustworthy jurist among the men of the two Shaykhs. And ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Awaysī is a trustworthy figure among the teachers of al-Bukhārī. And those below him are trustworthy preservers. This corroboration was overlooked by the commentator on "Iḥsān al-Muʾassasah" (15/306); for he focused on the apparent weakness in the isnād of Ibn Ḥibbān due to the Zanjī and al-Farawī! And if you recognize this corroborator; perhaps it will remove the previously mentioned surprise; for