I say: A narrator of his standing is good in hadith, especially when corroborated, as is the case here.

Second: ‘Uthman ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman—al-Tara’ifi. Ibn Ma‘in and others declared him reliable. Those who spoke against him did not cite any criticism that would override such accreditation; rather, some of them mentioned something indicating weakness in certain of his teachers, such as al-Bukhari’s statement:

“He narrates from weak narrators.”

For this reason, al-Hafiz did not declare him weak. In al-Taqrib, summing up what may be inferred from the totality of the hadith scholars’ statements concerning him, he said:

“Truthful; he narrated extensively from weak and unknown narrators, and was therefore deemed weak, to the point that Ibn Numayr accused him of lying. Yet Ibn Ma‘in declared him reliable.”

I say: His hadith too is good when the narrator above him is an authority, as is the case here.

Third: Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Mufaddal al-Harrani. This is how it appears in the original, and likewise in Mukhtasar al-Zawa’id (1/360/589). It therefore seems that this originated with either al-Bazzar or al-Haythami, whom al-Hafiz followed in this. The correct name is Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Fadl. Al-Hafiz al-Mizzi cited him in the biography of al-Tara’ifi in his Tahdhib, and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi included a biographical notice on him in al-Tarikh (4/243), through reports from a number of trustworthy, meticulous scholars who narrated from him, such as Ibn Sa‘id and others. He then said:

“I know nothing of his condition but good.”

Al-Sam‘ani cited him under the nisbah al-Kazburani, which has been corrupted in al-Tarikh as al-Kurayzani; it should be corrected.