and most of them are trustworthy, and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (9/35). Abū Zurʿah al-Dimashqī also mentioned him in "Tasmiyat Nafar Dhū Isnād wa-ʿIlm" as Ibn ʿAsākir mentioned. I did not find him in the printed "Tārīkh Dimashq" by Abū Zurʿah. 4- As for Abū al-Ashʿath al-Ṣanʿānī—his name is Sharāḥīl ibn Ādah—he is trustworthy among the men of Muslim. Thus, the isnād is authentic, and all praise is due to Allāh. It is something that the commentator on "al-Iḥsān" (3/216) missed mentioning among the various paths of the ḥadīth, all of which contain weakness, ignorance, or discontinuity, and therefore he did not explicitly state the rank of the ḥadīth! However, he explicitly stated that it is weak in his edition of "al-Mawārid" (2/1089). Among those paths: what he attributed to al-Ḥākim (1/508) through the route of ʿUmar ibn Yūnus ibn al-Qāsim al-Yamāmī from ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār, who said: I heard Shaddād Abū ʿAmmār narrating from Shaddād ibn Aws. The commentator said: "al-Ḥākim authenticated it according to the conditions of Muslim, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him." He remained silent on it and did not critique them, although their error in this is apparent; because it is narrated by Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn Sinān al-Qazzāz: Thana ʿUmar ibn Yūnus... I say: this al-Qazzāz is not among the men of Muslim firstly, and then he is criticized; al-Dhahabī himself mentioned him in "al-Mīzān" and said: "Abū Dāwūd accused him of lying, and Ibn Kharrāsh says: he is not trustworthy. As for al-Dāraqutnī, he considered him acceptable and said: there is no harm in him." Therefore, the ḥāfiẓ decisively declared him weak in "al-Taqrīb."