“And Abū Ḥātim said: ‘There is no harm in him.’” This addition is an error on his part, for Abū Ḥātim said this only about the narrator immediately following the one whose biography is cited (2/2/105). As for this narrator, his son reported nothing from him except that he had deemed him weak.

As for his statement, “No one criticized him except because of his narrations from weak narrators,” this explanation is untenable in relation to those who declared him weak, for nothing in any of their statements suggests this; rather, their statements indicate the contrary. Refer to Tahdhīb if you wish. This is why al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb: “Truthful, accused of Rāfiḍism, and he also made mistakes.”

I say: Thus, the explanation that he narrated from weak narrators applies to al-Bukhārī; as for the others, their reason was his poor retention. And Allah knows best.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs was contradicted, for al-Ṭabarānī also transmitted it (10/47/9880) through Abū Mālik al-Nakhaʿī—whose name was ʿAbd al-Malik ibn al-Ḥusayn—from Ḥajjāj, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Tharwān, from Huzayl ibn Shuraḥbīl, from ʿAbd Allāh, who said: “The Messenger of Allah would combine the Maghrib and ʿIshāʾ prayers, delaying Maghrib until the end of its time and bringing ʿIshāʾ forward to the beginning of its time.”

This Abū Mālik was deemed weak by al-Haythamī (2/159), and al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb: “Abandoned.” Ḥajjāj apparently is Ibn Arṭāh, and he practised tadlīs. Al-Ṭabarānī then transmitted it (9881) through Ibn Abī Laylā, from Abū Qays, from Huzayl, in an abridged form, with the wording: