9/573. Yet the author still argues from al-Ḥāfiẓ’s silence, as he himself noted on p. 27 of his “treatise”!!

I then went back to al-ʿIbar and found al-Dhahabī adopting Ibn Maʿīn’s verdict on him: “ṣadūq” (reliable).

In the sense already explained, this means that his ḥadīth is ḥasan (sound). For that very reason al-Dhahabī included him in his book Maʿrifat al-ruwāt al-mutakallam fīhim bimā lā yūjib al-radd (p. 192/383), where he wrote:

“ṣadūq. Ibn Maʿīn said: Murjiʾ, one who follows the ruler.”

Al-Dhahabī is pointing out that the criticism concerns his leaning toward Irjāʾ and his frequenting the court, not his honesty or reliability as a transmitter, and such matters do not impugn a narrator’s ḥadīth, as is well known in hadith methodology. Abū Zurʿah hinted at the same when asked about him, “What fault is found in him?” He replied, “As for his ḥadīth, I know of none.”

In short, the author—may Allah pardon us and him—gained nothing from the conflicting statements he quoted from the leading critics regarding this Yūnus ibn Bukayr, nor did he explain why he chose to rate him weak, merely following Ibn Ḥajar’s Taqrīb. Moreover, Ibn Ḥajar’s phrase “ṣadūq, but he makes mistakes” is not a categorical declaration of weakness. From long experience we know that Ibn Ḥajar often grades the ḥadīth of someone he describes that way as ḥasan; the ʿĀʾishah report is a clear example.

Had the author possessed a sound grasp of technical terminology he would have clarified the basis of his choice—for instance, by saying: “Criticism takes precedence over commendation.” We would answer: that is not unrestricted; it applies only when the criticism is specific and truly damaging. Al-Dhahabī, in the very statement just quoted from Maʿrifah, pointed out that the criticism leveled against him does not harm him.

Reflect on this, dear reader, and it will become clear to you that the man erred in declaring Yūnus weak, and that he did not issue