he said so! In this, he follows Ibn Maʿīn and overlooked his critique in "al-Mīzān" where he said: "I say: Abū Zurʿah and Abū Ḥātim narrated from him, and he is of acceptable status, if Allāh wills." The ḥāfiẓ confirmed this in "al-Lisān," saying: "Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned him without criticism, and al-Ḥākim included him in 'al-Mustadrak' as evidence, and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in (al-Thiqāt) [9/12]." Al-Haythamī said in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (9/317): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī and al-Bazzār through the route of Fayḍ ibn Wathīq from Abū ʿUbādah al-Zurqī, and both are weak." It appeared in "al-Mustadrak" and "al-Talkhīṣ" as (Abū ʿAmārah)! Perhaps for this reason, al-Dhahabī did not criticize it; because he did not recognize it, as it is a distortion, and Allāh knows best. Among the distortions: (al-Fayḍ) appeared in "Kashf al-Astār" as (al-Faḍl)! Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī did not recognize it, saying in his commentary: "Such is the original, and in the Zawāʾid: (al-Fayḍ)!" That is the extent of his knowledge! In summary; the ḥadīth is authentic with these corroborations and testimonies, yet it did not escape the harm of that demolisher named (Ḥassān), who rejected it in his commentary on "Ighāthah al-Lahfān." I have refuted him in my book, in which I am critiquing his weakening of authentic ḥadīths, and I have shown that it has other testimonies, all of which he ignored! May Allāh deal with him as he deserves. *