The ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAbd Allāh Ibn al-Najjār said: “The fascicle of Muḥammad ibn ʿĀṣim was transmitted from Abū Nuʿaym by reliable narrators, and whenever a truthful ḥāfiẓ declares, ‘This book is my own audition,’ it is unanimously permissible to receive it from him.” (1)

I say: Al-Khaṭīb’s remark that “he was lax,” and the like, concerns something Abū Nuʿaym did only rarely. He would more often write, “al-Khuldī wrote to me,” or “Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Aṣamm wrote to me,” and, “Abū al-Maimūn ibn Rāshid informed us in his book.” Yet I have seen him say of his shaykh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar ibn Fāris— from whom he heard a great deal and who was his senior-most teacher—“ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar informed us regarding what was read to him,” which gives the impression of direct audition, whereas in fact it was material he held only by ijāzah (transmission licence). Using the formula “he informed us” for reports obtained by ijāzah is a recognised practice that has become widespread among the Andalusian ḥadith scholars, who have taken considerable liberty with it. Accordingly, if Abū Nuʿaym applied that wording to men such as al-Aṣamm, Abū al-Maimūn al-Bajalī, and other shaykhs from whom he is known to have received nothing but an ijāzah, it is permissible, though the safer course is to avoid it.

The ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Ḥajjāj al-Kalbī told me that he had seen an autograph of the ḥāfiẓ Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn in which he found, in the handwriting of Abū al-Ḥajjāj ibn Khalīl, the statement: “I have seen the original certificate of the ḥāfiẓ Abū Nuʿaym’s audition of the fascicle of Muḥammad ibn ʿĀṣim.”

I say: This nullifies what al-Khaṭīb imagined and supposed. Abū Nuʿaym is above suspicion; he is truthful and knowledgeable in this field. I know of no fault of his—may Allah pardon him—graver than his relating fabricated ḥadiths in his compilations and then remaining silent about their spuriousness.