al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mughnī": "A Basran, from the shaykhs of the noble ones, trustworthy. Al-Nasāʾī and Abū Ḥātim said: He is not strong." And he said in "al-Kāshif": "Truthful." Ibn Abī Ḥātim criticized him by saying: "This is an error; it is only from Salmān his statement, and Ashʿath is unknown, not recognized!" Thus he said! Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (8/128-129), and said: "He makes rare statements." The ḥāfiẓ affirmed this in "al-Lisān," and added: "al-Bazzār said: There is no harm in him, our companions narrated from him; Bishr ibn Ādam, Aḥmad ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿUbaydah, and others." I said: Despite all of this, including the words of Abū Ḥātim about him, and the authentication by Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Bazzār; al-Mundhirī and others did not recognize him, so he said in "al-Targhīb" (1/139/13): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr' and 'al-Ṣaghīr,' and in it is Ashʿath ibn Ashʿath al-Saʿdānī, whose biography I did not find!" Al-Haythamī followed him (1/300), and the three commentators on "al-Targhīb" (1/311-312) imitated them, explicitly declaring the ḥadīth weak! Even if the man was unknown as they thought; it does not necessarily imply the weakness of the ḥadīth, because it has a supporting narration from Ibn ʿUmar through some authentic routes, and its clarification and documentation have already been mentioned under number (1398), and perhaps for this reason he did not explicitly state..