"there is no harm in it, if Allāh the Exalted wills." I said: al-Dhahabī relied on the weakening of al-Ṣūrī mentioned in "al-Mīzān" and "al-Mughnī," and he added, saying: "Ibn Mandah said: he is not of that standing." I said: As for al-Haythamī, he criticized it due to the shaykh of (Ibn Ḥibbān), saying in "al-Majmaʿ" (9/171) — after he narrated it from the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī only: "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī, and in it is Kathīr ibn Yaḥyá, who is weak, but Ibn Ḥibbān declared him reliable." I said: His mentioned weakening followed al-Dhahabī in "al-Mīzān," and it is rejected; because it is an unsubstantiated criticism, and the reliance is on the authentication of Ibn Ḥibbān, as it is supported by others as I have clarified in his biography in "Taysīr al-Intifāʿ," and it suffices that he is among the shaykhs of Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī, who only narrates from reliable sources, and likewise he is among the shaykhs of Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī in this ḥadīth and others. Al-Ḥākim also narrated it (3/137) through his route: Thana Yāḥyá ibn Kathīr: Thana Abū ʿAwānah with it, with a shortened version of the story. He said: "Its isnād is authentic." And al-Dhahabī agreed with him. There is another route; narrated by ʿAlī ibn ʿĀbis from Abū al-Jaḥḥāf with it. It was narrated by Ibn ʿAsākir in "al-Tārīkh" (5/40). But ʿAlī ibn ʿĀbis is weak, so the reliance is on the narration of Abū ʿAwānah—whose name is Waḍḍāḥ al-Yashkurī—and he is a reliable, established narrator from the men of the two Shaykhs