Abu Zur'ah said: “He is weak in hadith.”

Al-Nasa'i said: “Abandoned.”

Ibn 'Adi said: “I see nothing objectionable in his hadith.” Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Shu'ayb used to praise him very highly.

Al-Ahwazi said: “'Ata ibn Muslim considered him trustworthy.”

Al-Baghawi said: “His hadith is acceptable.”

I say: Thus, someone like him may be cited as corroborative evidence, Allah willing. Three others also corroborated him:

The first was Qays ibn al-Rabi', from Ziyad ibn 'Alaqah, with the same report. Al-Tabarani recorded it. Qays too is weak because of his poor retention, so he may be used as corroborative evidence.

The second was Sulayman ibn Arqam, from Ziyad ibn 'Alaqah, with the same report but without the third clause. Ahmad recorded it (4/365). Sulayman, too, is weak, like the two before him.

The third was al-Walid ibn Abi Thawr, from Ziyad, with the same report as the preceding one. Al-Tabarani recorded it. Al-Walid, too, is weak,