has been deemed reliable by the majority of the early scholars, including al-Bukhārī, and none of them weakened him except Aḥmad in one narration; for he said what al-Bayhaqī stated, and this does not mean he is "weak" as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr declared, given the known difference between this and saying "not strong," especially since Aḥmad said in another narration about him: "reliable." Ibn Maʿīn also spoke about him: and for this reason, both Shaykhs included him in the "Ṣaḥīḥayn"; he has certainly crossed the bridge. Similarly, the second aspect of weakness; because such a disagreement holds no value; rather, it should not be mentioned; for if Saʿīd ibn Sālim were reliable, his opposition to the three trustworthy individuals previously mentioned should not be considered, especially among them Imām al-Shāfiʿī, so how can it be when his memory is already questioned?! The same can be said—more so—about the follow-up of (ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad al-Shāmī)—and in "Sunan al-Bayhaqī": (al-Shāfiʿī)—for he is not known in the books of men, with the possibility that he is the one mentioned in "al-Mīzān": "ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥajar al-Shāmī, resident of Raʾs al-ʿAyn, weakened by al-Azdī." Al-Ḥāfiẓ added in "al-Lisān" that Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt," stating: "he narrates rare and unique reports." He mentioned him in the fourth category of it (8/349). Then, even if we hypothetically concede that such a disagreement has any noteworthy value, preference can be given from