So he said! As for ʿĀʾidh ibn Shurayḥ, I do not know of anyone who declared him trustworthy—not even Ibn Ḥibbān. Al-Dhahabī said in al-Mughnī: “I have not seen any disparagement or authentication of him from them, apart from Abū Ḥātim’s statement: ‘There is weakness in his hadith.’ I say: He is not a reliable authority.”

I say: A number of narrators reported from him, as stated in al-Jarḥ (3/2/16), so his report may be cited as corroboration. Moreover, the proof is established by the narration of the two trustworthy transmitters, Abū Khālid—namely al-Aḥmar, Sulaymān al-Aḥmar—and al-Faḍl ibn Mūsā, who corroborated him, from Ḥumayd, from Anas. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Dirāyah (2/129): “This is a good corroborating narration for the report of Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar. And Allah knows best.” This strongly indicates his rejection of Abū Ḥātim’s aforementioned statement, which indeed deserves to be rejected for the reasons already explained.

He also subtly indicated his rejection of it in al-Talkhīṣ (1/230), saying of it: “And he declared it weak.” Thus, he was not inclined to reproduce the exact wording of the statement mentioned above, because of its severity and its remoteness from what is correct. Yet he nevertheless confused one route with another. After tracing the hadith through the narrations of the authors of the Sunan and others, from Abū Saʿīd and others, he said: “From Anas, there is a similar report. Al-Dāraquṭnī narrated it, and in its chain is al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Aswad, concerning whom there is criticism. It also has another route, which Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned in al-ʿIlal from his father, and he declared it weak.”

I say: From our documentation here, you have learned that Abū Ḥātim’s route is the very route of al-Dāraquṭnī; both narrated it through Muḥammad ibn al-Ṣalt. So take note.