cited by al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ only in suspended form, and he likewise cited him in al-Adab al-Mufrad.

There is, however, a difference of opinion about him. Al-Dhahabī himself says in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ:
“Abū Dāwūd deemed him reliable; Ibn Maʿīn said, ‘weak in ḥadīth’; and Aḥmad said, ‘his ḥadīth is acceptable.’”

This is the position al-Dhahabī adopts in al-Mīzān, where he writes:
“Abū ʿĀmir al-Khazzāz has perhaps fifty ḥadīths to his credit, and he is, as Aḥmad said, ‘acceptable in ḥadīth.’”

I say: his narrations are therefore ḥasan, Allah willing, for Ibn ʿAdī said,
“In my judgement there is nothing wrong with him; I have not encountered any report of his that is markedly objectionable.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ (Ibn Ḥajar) states in al-Taqrīb:
“Truthful, yet makes many mistakes,”
which shows that he inclines toward deeming him weak—Allah knows best.

Be that as it may, the ḥadīth itself is authentic, because he is not its sole transmitter. This is indicated by Ibn Ḥajar’s words in Fatḥ al-Bārī (10/365): after mentioning it through this chain as reported by al-Ḥākim and al-Bayhaqī in al-Shuʿab, he says,
“Al-Bayhaqī also recorded it through Muslim ibn Junādah, from Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah—the substance of the story being the same—and he labelled it ‘singular (gharīb).’
He likewise narrated it via Abū Salamah from ʿĀʾishah in similar fashion, but its chain is weak.”

I say: the route of Abū Salamah was produced by Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī in Ādāb al-Ṣuḥbah (24), through Muḥammad ibn Thamāl al-Ṣanʿānī, who said: “ʿAbd al-Muʾmin ibn Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr narrated to us from Abū Salamah …”

I have found no biographical entry for either Muḥammad ibn Thamāl or his shaykh ʿAbd al-Muʾmin.