I said: What he meant is the repetition of the isnād paths; as for the legal texts he actually transmitted, they do not amount to a tenth of that.

Al-Bukhārī adds here a fine discussion about those who narrated from Ibn Isḥāq, noting that both Ibrāhīm ibn Saʿd and Ṣāliḥ ibn Kaysān reported from him in great abundance.

Al-Bukhārī said, “Even if it were verified that Mālik had spoken against Ibn Isḥāq, a man may let slip a word and fault his companion for one thing, yet not accuse him in every matter.”

He also said—and Ibrāhīm ibn al-Munḏir relates from Muḥammad ibn Fulayḥ—that:

“Mālik forbade me to take from two Qurashī shaykhs, although he himself cites them frequently in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Both are authorities whose ḥadīth are relied upon. Many people have not escaped criticism from others: consider what is reported of Ibrāhīm’s remarks about al-Shaʿbī, al-Shaʿbī’s remarks about ʿIkrima, and the like among those before them. Some even went so far as to impugn others’ honor or very lives, yet the scholars heed none of this unless it is accompanied by a clear explanation and proof. A narrator’s integrity is not dismissed except on the basis of firm evidence and a valid argument, and discussion of this is extensive.”

I say: We do not claim for the leading authorities of al-jarḥ wa’l-taʿdīl immunity from an occasional mistake, nor freedom from speaking sharply about someone with whom they had rancor or resentment (1). It is well known that much of the criticism exchanged between contemporaries is discarded and carries no weight (2), especially when the same critic has also declared the narrator reliable