“This hadith is not authentic, for Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Atash has been impugned. Ibn Hammad said: ‘He is an abandoned narrator.’ And regarding Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyad, Talhah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja‘far said: ‘He used to lie.’”

I say: This criticism is entirely without value, for two reasons. First, as we have already stated, the two of them were not alone in narrating the hadith. It is most astonishing that this should have escaped Ibn al-Jawzi—or at least some of it. The hadith is found in Musnad Ahmad with an authentic chain, as mentioned above.

Second, Ibn Atash’s case is not so serious as to warrant abandoning him, for a number of scholars declared him trustworthy, including Abu Hatim. Ibn Hammad’s contrary judgment—he being al-Dulabi, the author of al-Kuna—is itself open to criticism, as stated in al-Mizan and al-Lisan. Thus, his criticism cannot stand in opposition to Abu Hatim’s declaration of his trustworthiness, especially since Abu Hatim is counted among the strict critics. The same may be said of al-Azdi’s statement about him, which is like al-Dulabi’s statement, for al-Azdi himself has been criticized.

Al-Nasa’i did agree with them, as recorded in al-Tahdhib; however, al-Hafiz Ahmad ibn Salih rebutted this, saying: “He is trustworthy, and al-Nasa’i’s remarks concerning him are unacceptable.” Al-Hafiz commented thereafter: “For Ahmad and Ali ibn al-Madini narrate only from acceptable narrators, in addition to Ahmad ibn Salih’s assessment of him.” Accordingly, al-Hafiz said in al-Taqrib: “Truthful, though somewhat weak.”

The same applies to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ziyad. Al-Dhahabi and al-Asqalani said of him: “He is truthful. Whoever declared him a liar erred concerning him, though he is not a dependable authority.”