the response to this is from several angles: first, I did not find—in the sources I reviewed regarding his biography—anyone who accused him of Shīʿism. second, suppose there was something of it in him; it is not a discrediting flaw if he was trustworthy; and he was, as al-Samʿānī described him in "al-Ansāb" as being among the reliable and trustworthy. Ibn al-ʿImād mentioned in "al-Shadharāt" (3/87) that he was a knowledgeable reciter, well-versed in Arabic, with insight into ḥadīth, and advanced in worship. third, the ḥadīth was attributed by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar in "al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah" (2/188/2) to Abū Yaʿlá as well, and he mentioned in the introduction that he narrates "his Musnad" through the route of Abū Bakr al-Muqriʾ from Abū Yaʿlá. Ibn al-Muqriʾ is a trustworthy, reliable ḥāfiẓ, thus he is a strong corroborator for Abū ʿAmr al-Ḥīrī. Therefore, Ibn al-Jawzī's criticism of the ḥadīth due to him is invalidated. 2- As for the ḥadīth of Thawbān, it is narrated by Yazīd ibn Rabīʿah: Thana al-Ashʿath from Thawbān with a similar wording. It was recorded by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (2/92/1425). This Yazīd is abandoned. 3- As for the ḥadīth of Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib; it is narrated by al-Shādhakūnī from Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd from Sufyān from ʿAlī ibn Zayd from him... as a mursal with a similar wording. It was recorded by al-Khaṭīb in "al-Tārīkh" (9/44). Al-Shādhakūnī is a liar. Thus, the primary reliance is on the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah. And Allāh knows best. *