Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (9/416–421), as did al-Ḥākim (2/376–377 and 4/589–592). In the first place, he said:

“It is authentic according to the criterion of the two Shaykhs!”

Al-Dhahabī concurred with him.

In the other place, he said:

“Every one of this hadith’s narrators is trustworthy. The two did not include Abū Khālid al-Dālānī in the two Ṣaḥīḥs because of what has been mentioned concerning his departure from the Sunnah in his remarks about the Companions. As for the early imams, they all attested to Abū Khālid’s truthfulness and precision. The hadith is authentic, though the two did not record it; and Abū Khālid al-Dālānī is among those whose hadith is collected with the leading authorities of Kūfah.”

That is what he said. I do not know of anyone who attested to his precision. As for truthfulness, then yes; but there was weakness in his retention, as will follow. Here, however, al-Dhahabī criticized him, saying:

“What an objectionable hadith, despite the quality of its chain of transmission! Abū Khālid was a deviant Shiʿite!”

I say: I have not seen anyone accuse him of Shiʿism, so perhaps al-Dhahabī confused him with someone else. Moreover, the scholars differed concerning him. Al-Dhahabī himself said in al-Kāshif:

“Abū Ḥātim declared him trustworthy, while Ibn ʿAdī said: ‘There is weakness in his hadith.’”

And in al-Mughnī, he said:

“Well-known; his hadith is good. Aḥmad said: ‘There is no harm in him.’ Ibn Ḥibbān said: ‘He was grossly prone to error, and it is not permissible to cite him as evidence.’”

For this reason, al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb:

“Truthful, but frequently mistaken; and he practised concealment in transmission.”