al-Ḥākim narrated it through the route of ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī, Bishr ibn Mūsá al-Asadī, and al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Usāmah al-Tamīmī, all of whom said: Yaḥyá ibn Isḥāq al-Sayliḥīnī narrated to us, [saying] Yaḥyá ibn Ayyūb narrated to us. Then al-Ḥākim said: "Jarīr ibn Ḥāzim narrated it from Yaḥyá ibn Ayyūb." Then he provided his chain of narration to him with it. So these are three reliable narrators who followed al-Ḥārith in this ḥadīth! It is not the method of the scholars to criticize a ḥadīth by attacking an individual among a group who unanimously agree on narrating the ḥadīth. Aḥmad also followed him, saying (5/185): Yaḥyá ibn Isḥāq narrated to us with it! Second: al-Dhahabī did not overlook here, but when he saw the group had followed al-Ḥārith, he did not see it permissible in this knowledge to criticize him because it does not benefit anything as is apparent, so the oversight is from others, not from him! Third: the ḥadīth to which the writer referred and quoted from al-Dhahabī that he rejected it and said about it: "al-Ḥārith is not reliable." Its defect is actually from the teacher of al-Ḥārith's teacher, who is Abū ʿĀmir al-Khazzāz, and his name is Ṣāliḥ ibn Rustum, for he has weakness in his memory as indicated by the statement of the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Taqrīb." "Truthful but makes many mistakes." Furthermore, he is among those whom al-Bukhārī did not rely upon, but only narrated from in a suspended manner, so if the writer had attributed the oversight to al-Dhahabī here, he would have been correct. Fourth: what he quoted from al-Dhahabī in "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-al-Matrūkīn" through al-Munāwī that he said about him: weak. This is not correct, and it is due to the misfortune of the intermediary! If the writer had bypassed it and reviewed the collection "al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-al-Matrūkīn" himself, he would have found the opposite of what al-Munāwī quoted, for he said in the biography of al-Ḥārith therein (p. 152/1). "The owner of the Musnad, truthful, some have criticized him."