For that reason we find the exacting ḥadith critics—al-Dhahabī, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, and others—refusing to declare reliable anyone whose sole endorsement is that of Ibn Ḥibbān. Numerous instances of this will appear when we examine the weak traditions whose transmitters the author—or those who quote him—have pronounced trustworthy, even though some of them are unknown narrators whose authentication rests exclusively on Ibn Ḥibbān.
It should also be noted that Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī’s statement, “even if he is unknown and his state is not established,” is imprecise, for it implies—by contrast—that Ibn Ḥibbān’s method in Kitāb al-Thiqat was to omit every majhūl al-ʿayn (a narrator unknown in identity). This is not the case, as is evident from the previously cited entry on Sahl in which he said, “I do not know him, nor do I know who his father is,” and from further examples that will soon follow.
Likewise, the ḥāfiẓ’s phrase, “by the narration of a single well-known transmitter,” suggests that Ibn Ḥibbān authenticates only those from whom one celebrated narrator relates. If by “well-known” he meant “renowned for probity,” as the wording appears to indicate, reality refutes it, for many of the men whom Ibn Ḥibbān lists lack such validation. And if he intended some other sense, the remark carries no weight, for the narrator in that case would be either weak or unknown—both categories having representatives in Kitāb al-Thiqat. Here are a few examples from the generation of the Successors whom he includes:
- Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-ʿAdhrī. He said ⦗4/10⦘: “He reports mursal traditions; Muʿān ibn Rifāʿah narrates from him.” He then cited with his own chain a mursal report from him: “Those who inherit this knowledge in every generation are its upright men….”
I say: Concerning this Muʿān the ḥāfiẓ himself remarked, “His ḥadith is weak,” and al-Dhahabī said: