"with a sound isnād"! Al-Dhahabī refuted it by saying: "I said: Aḥmad—meaning Ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Wahb—is weak." I said: it is with Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Bazzār through a different route as previously indicated. As for what al-Munāwī said in "Fayḍ al-Qadīr": "Al-Dhahabī critiqued it by saying that Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān ibn Bilāl—one of its narrators—is weak; so how can it be sound?!" I say: Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān ibn Bilāl is a non-existent figure; rather, al-Ḥākim narrated it through Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Wahb: my uncle told me: Sulaymān ibn Bilāl informed me... I said: consider how the matter became confused for al-Munāwī, leading him to construct in his mind a name from three names in this isnād that does not exist! The one upon whom the routes revolve is Kathīr ibn Zayd—the Aslamī from Medina—about whom there is disagreement. Abū Zurʿah said about him—and al-Dhahabī followed him in "al-Kāshif": "Truthful, but has some leniency." Al-ʿAsqalānī said: "Truthful, but makes mistakes." Ibn ʿAdī included for him in "al-Kāmil" (6/67-69) ḥadīths from the narration of some of the three about him, and said: "I did not see any harm in his ḥadīth." I said: and it seems to me from this statement, and the statements of the other scholars, that he is moderate and his ḥadīth is good as long as he does not contradict, and for this reason, some of his ḥadīths were considered good in the previous sections of this..