some said there is no harm in him. Some considered him reliable, while Imām Abū Ḥātim said about him: "An elder whose narration is not used as evidence." In its chain is Ḥashraj ibn Nubātah al-Wāsiṭī, whom some considered reliable. Al-Nasāʾī said about him: "He is not strong," and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal narrated this report from Suwayd al-Ṭaḥḥān, about whom al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said in "Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb": "Weak in ḥadīth." I said: Thus, it was criticized with three defects. We will respond to them to reveal the truth to you, if Allāh wills: the first is the disagreement about Saʿīd ibn Jumhān. The response is that not every disagreement about a narrator is harmful; rather, one must consider and weigh the evidence. We previously mentioned the names of some of the scholars who considered him reliable, including Aḥmad, Ibn Maʿīn, and Abū Dāwūd. Added to them here are Ibn Ḥibbān, who mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt," and al-Nasāʾī, who said: "There is no harm in him." Opposing these are the statements of al-Bukhārī: "There are wonders in his ḥadīth," and al-Sājī: "He is not followed in his ḥadīth." I said: This is an ambiguous and unexplained criticism, so it is not valid to accept it in opposition to the reliability given by those who considered him reliable, as established in "al-Muṣṭalaḥ." Moreover, those who considered him reliable are many, and their number increases when we include those who authenticated his ḥadīth, since authentication necessitates reliability, as is evident. Furthermore, Ibn Jumhān did not narrate this ḥadīth alone, as we mentioned two supporting narrations for him previously. The second is that in its chain is Ḥashraj ibn Nubātah..