All of its narrators are trustworthy men relied upon by al-Bukhari, except Hibban ibn Ali, who is weak, though not altogether rejected, as al-Dhahabi said; thus, someone like him may be cited as corroborative evidence.

As for al-Layth’s narration, which al-Tirmidhi cited without a complete chain from Uqayl, from al-Zuhri, as a mursal report, al-Tahawi connected it through the route of Ibn Salih, from him. Ibn Salih was Abdullah, al-Layth’s scribe, and there is weakness in him; therefore, he cannot be relied upon as proof when he is alone in reporting, so how could he be when he contradicts others?