"and that he informed of the conquest..." etc. Likewise, al-Khaṭīb ignored the ḥadīth of the chapter which explicitly mentions the companionship of Umm al-Dardāʾ, despite it being in "Sunan Abī Dāwūd," which would not be hidden from someone of lesser memory than him. He implied that it has no other chain except the chain of (Zabān), and he asserted that this Umm al-Dardāʾ had no companionship, even though he mentioned another ḥadīth in which she explicitly stated that she heard from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam); and he said about it (1/363): "This is a connected isnād with reliable men!" Shaykh al-Muʿallimī critiqued him in his commentary, noting that it includes Shahr ibn Ḥawshab, and that in Aḥmad's narration she is named (Asmāʾ bint Yazīd): that she heard the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)..., so refer to it. Then he reported the disagreement about her companionship among the ḥuffāẓ, with some affirming and others denying. I have no doubt that the affirmation is more accurate due to the ḥadīth of the chapter, and because most of the ḥuffāẓ support it, with ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī at the forefront, as mentioned in "al-Iṣābah," and Ibn Ḥibbān included her among the Companions in "al-Thiqāt" (3/116 and 358); and al-Dhahabī asserted this in "al-Tajrīd" (2/266/3202). As for Ibn al-Jawzī, he was excessively critical; he included the ḥadīth in "al-ʿIlal" (1/341) from Aḥmad's narration, saying: "As for Abū Ṣakhr, his name is (Ḥumayd ibn Ziyād), Yahyá weakened him. This ḥadīth is false, for they did not have doves in the time of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)!" I say: This is an obvious excessiveness; for the man is disputed over, and it is not permissible to rely on the statement of the one who weakens him without weighing it against the statement of the one who considers him reliable, otherwise, only a few ḥadīths would remain for us. Therefore, al-Dhahabī said in "al-Kāshif": "He is disputed over, Aḥmad said: There is nothing wrong with him."