“Its chain of transmission is authentic, for Abu Salih al-Khuzi and Abu al-Malih al-Farisi have not been subject to any criticism; rather, they are counted among the unknown narrators because they narrated few hadiths.”

This is what he said, and al-Dhahabi endorsed him. Yet this is open to question with respect to Abu al-Malih, for he is not unknown. How could he be, when a number of trustworthy narrators related from him—whom are mentioned in al-Tahdhib—including Waki‘ ibn al-Jarrah, Marwan ibn Mu‘awiyah al-Fazari, Hatim ibn Isma‘il, and Abu ‘Asim al-Dahhak ibn Makhlad al-Shaybani? All of them narrated this hadith from him. So how could he be unknown, especially when Ibn Ma‘in said of him, “Trustworthy,” Ibn Hibban included him in al-Thiqat (6/475), and al-Hafiz likewise declared him trustworthy?

As for his shaykh, Abu Salih al-Khuzi, placing him among the unknown narrators is more fitting, since they mentioned no one as having narrated from him besides this Abu al-Malih—were it not for Abu Zur‘ah’s statement concerning him: “There is no harm in him,” as Ibn Abi Hatim relates and endorses in al-Jarh wa-al-Ta‘dil (4/2/393). For this reason, al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir said in his Tafsir (7/309), following the hadith—which he cited through one of Ahmad’s two chains of transmission: “Ahmad alone narrated it, and this chain of transmission is unobjectionable.”

This is exactly what I had said in the other series under hadith (21), mentioning it incidentally. I said there: “It is a good hadith.” This caused confusion for one of our Kuwaiti student brothers, who attributed to me the judgment that I had declared the hadith authentic. In reality, I judged it only good, as I stated above. Indeed, under the hadith referred to, I refuted al-Hakim’s authentication of it. He also attributed other things to me which are not suitable to mention here; I shall write to him about that, if Allah Most High wills.