I say: This is a milder form of narrator criticism, even though most scholars considered him weak. Ibn Maʿīn said in one report: “There is nothing wrong with him.”

I say: A narrator like him may be cited as corroborative evidence, and there is no problem with that, Allah willing. All the other narrators are reliable.

Second: From Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad ibn Zāʾidah al-Laythī, from ʿĀmir ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, from his father, who said: ... and he related it with the same meaning.

Ibn ʿAdī narrated it (4/59).

This is like the one before it, or better than it. Regarding this Ṣāliḥ, al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān: “His standing is close to acceptable ...”

And he said in al-Mughnī:

“A somewhat righteous man. Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘Weak.’ Aḥmad said: ‘I do not see anything wrong with him.’ And Ibn Maʿīn said: ‘Weak.’”

In al-Kāshif, he mentioned that he was devoted to night worship, pious devotion, and jihad.

Thus, a narrator like him may be cited as corroborative evidence, and the hadith rises to the rank of good at the very least—and is certainly authentic through the following corroborating report:

Third: From Abū Hurayrah, who said:

“The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, declared inviolable the area between the two lava plains of Medina ... and made twelve miles around Medina a protected reserve.”

Muslim narrated it (4/116), as did Aḥmad (2/279).