and similarly is the statement of al-Dhahabī in "al-Mughnī": "Truthful but errs, trusted by Ibn Maʿīn and others, but weakened by al-Nasāʾī and a group, and al-Bukhārī and Abū Zurʿah said: his ḥadīth is rejected." Ibn al-Jawzī went to extremes in "al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah" (2/212-213), as he also criticized [al-ʿAlāʾ ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān], saying: "Yaḥyā said: his ḥadīth is not a proof, his ḥadīth is confused, and people have always avoided his ḥadīth!" This is an exaggeration on his part; the man is trustworthy, and Muslim relied on him, and there is slight criticism that does not harm him. Al-Dhahabī said in "al-Mughnī": "A well-known truthful person." Ibn ʿAdī said: "I see no harm in his ḥadīth." Abū Ḥātim said: "His ḥadīth is sound, but some things in his ḥadīth are rejected." Al-Zanjī was corroborated; Abū Yaʿlá said in "his Musnad" (11/348/6461): "Muṣʿab ibn ʿAbd Allāh narrated to us, saying: Ibn Abī Ḥāzim narrated to me from al-ʿAlāʾ with it." I said: This is a good isnād, Muṣʿab ibn ʿAbd Allāh—who is al-Zubaydī—is truthful. And those above him are trustworthy from the men of "al-Ṣaḥīḥ"; hence, al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (5/244): "Abū Yaʿlá narrated it, and its men are the men of 'al-Ṣaḥīḥ', except for Muṣʿab ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr; and he is trustworthy." Ibn al-Jawzī criticized it with a strange defect, saying about the narrator of "Musnad Abī Yaʿlá," Abū ʿAmr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Ḥīrī: "He was inclined towards Shīʿism!"