حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُصَفَّى الْحِمْصِيُّ...

Al-Sindi mentions in his commentary on Sunan Abi Majah in regards to this hadith and the disagreement of the scholars of hadith over these narrators, ‘In its sanad is Deenar Abu ‘Umar. Wakee’ considered him reliable, and Ibn Hibban [mentions him] from the reliable narrators. [But] Abu Hatim said, ‘He is not known.’ Al-Azdi said [his narrations are] ‘abandoned.’ Al-Khalili said in ‘Al-Irshad’ [that he is] a ‘liar’, along with Isma’il ibn Sulayman.

[In regards to Isma’il], Abu Hatim said, ‘He is pious.’ Ibn Hibban mentioned him from the reliable narrators, but said he makes mistakes [as well].’” See for example: Text from Al-Sindi in Arabic: في إسناده دينار أبي عمر وهو وإن وثقه وكيع وذكره ابن حبان في الثقات فقد قال أبو حاتم ليس بالمشهور وقال الأزدي متروك وقال الخليلي في الإرشاد كذاب وإسماعيل بن سليمان قال فيه أبو حاتم صالح لكن ذكره ابن حبان في الثقات وقال يخطئ In his attribution Dinar Abu Umar, and he, and even thought Wakie trusted him, and Ibn Haban mentioned him among the trusted ones, ‘Abu Hatim said, ‘It isn’t well-known’/ And Al-Azdy said, ‘It is left (unreliable)’.

And Al-Khaleeli said in (the book) ‘Al Irshad’, ‘He is a liar’/ And Ismail Bin Suleyman said, ‘And in it is Abu Hatim Salih, but Ibn Haban mentioned him being among the trusted ones and said, ‘He is mistaken’.