I said: there is a difference of opinion regarding him, and no one besides al-Nasāʾī criticized him. Ibn Maʿīn's statement about him: "He is nothing," merely means that his ḥadīths are very few, as Ibn al-Qaṭṭān al-Fāsī said, as cited by al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Muqaddimah" (p. 421), and he agreed with it! I have reservations about this, as I mentioned in some comments on "al-Rafʿ wa-al-Takmīl" (p. 100). In any case, it is not a strong criticism. Similar to this is Abū Ḥātim's statement (8/315-316/1456): "He is not strong, but his ḥadīth is recorded." Abū Zurʿah said: "Weak in ḥadīth." In contrast to these is Ibn ʿAdī's statement (6/410): "The Kufans and others among the trustworthy narrated from him, and I see no harm in his ḥadīth. Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd praised him completely." It is added in "al-Mīzān" and "al-Lisān": "al-Ahwāzī said: ʿAṭāʾ ibn Muslim considered him reliable, and al-Baghawī in 'Muʿjam al-Ṣaḥābah' said: A Kufan, sound in ḥadīth." I said: someone like him is used as supporting evidence at the very least, if not considered moderately good in ḥadīth, and Allāh knows best. Ibn ʿAqīl was followed by Ṭalḥah ibn Khirāsh who said: I heard Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh say: ...and he mentioned something similar, in which: