no. 884) who wrote: “An Egyptian Successor, trustworthy.”
Ibn Ḥibbān likewise listed him in al-Thiqāt (1/140), adding: “He was the client of al-Ḥakam ibn Abī al-ʿĀṣ.” I do not know whether he meant this narrator or someone else. We are accustomed to the Shaykh’s accepting Ibn Ḥibbān’s endorsement of otherwise unknown transmitters, as we have shown from his own words. Why, then, does the Shaykh declare this ḥadīth weak and refuse to authenticate it when it actually meets his own criteria?1

I do not wish to accuse him of employing double standards or of following a method for grading reports that departs from the principles laid down in the science of ḥadīth—though he openly states, as we have quoted, that he is not a specialist in that field. Still, it appears that when a ḥadīth conflicts with his legal school he is reluctant to examine it with the rigor demanded by ḥadīth criticism, insofar as he is acquainted with it, lest its authenticity become evident; thus he contents himself with any pretext he can find to pronounce it weak, even if