secondly: the authentication by al-Ḥākim, al-Dhahabī, and Ibn Shāhīn of its isnād is highly questionable! This is because (al-Saksakī), although al-Bukhārī included him, there are remarks regarding his memory that prevent ruling his isnād as authentic. As for ḥasan, it is possible. Al-Dhahabī himself said in "al-Mīzān": "A truthful Kūfan, criticized by Shuʿbah and al-Nasāʾī, but not abandoned. Al-Nasāʾī said: He is not that strong. Al-Bukhārī included him." Aḥmad said: Weak. Ibn ʿAdī said: I did not find for him any ḥadīth with objectionable text." He also said in "al-Ruwāt al-Mutakallam fīhim bimā lā Yūjib al-Radd" (p. 55): "Criticized by Shuʿbah, weakened by Aḥmad, his ḥadīth is ḥasan." Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful, weak in memory"; and see "Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl" (2/12); for he has therein a ḥadīth authenticated by Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Ḥibbān, and Ibn al-Jārūd. thirdly: al-Ḥākim's statement: "and Muslim used him as evidence"! is likely an error by some copyists; for what is transmitted from al-Ḥākim is contrary; as al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned in the biography of (al-Saksakī) from his book "Muqaddimat al-Fatḥ" (p. 388): "al-Ḥākim said: I asked al-Dāraqutnī: Why did Muslim abandon his ḥadīth? He said: Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd criticized him. I said: With proof? He said: He is weak." fourthly: despite all this, al-Ḥāfiẓ's silence on the ḥadīth suggests its strengthening, placing it at the level of ḥasan, as in the aforementioned statement of Ibn Shāhīn, and this according to al-Ḥāfiẓ: either intrinsically or extrinsically, which is more likely in my view; for al-Bayhaqī mentioned a corroborating witness from