I say: There is disagreement concerning him, and no one other than al-Nasāʾī declared him discredited. Ibn Maʿīn’s statement about him—“He is nothing”—only means that his hadith are very few, as Ibn al-Qaṭṭān al-Fāsī said, according to what al-Ḥāfiẓ related in the Introduction (p. 421), and he endorsed it. I myself have reservations on this point, for the reasons I mentioned in some notes on al-Rafʿ wa-al-Takmīl (p. 100). In any case, this is not a strong criticism. Similar to it is Abū Ḥātim’s statement (8/315–316/1456):

“He is not strong, but his hadith may be recorded.”

Abū Zurʿah said:

“Weak in hadith.”

Counterbalancing these statements is Ibn ʿAdī’s remark (6/410):

“The Kūfans and other reliable narrators related from him, and I see nothing objectionable in his hadith. Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd (1) used to praise him very highly.”

Al-Mīzān and al-Lisān add:

“Al-Ahwāzī said: ʿAṭāʾ ibn Muslim considered him trustworthy. Al-Baghawī said in Muʿjam al-Ṣaḥābah: ‘A Kūfan whose hadith are acceptable.’”

I say: At the very least, someone of his standing may be cited as supporting evidence, even if he is not of intermediate rank whose hadith are good. And Allah knows best.

Ṭalḥah ibn Khirāsh also corroborated Ibn ʿAqīl. He said: I heard Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh say: … and he related something similar, in which he said: