“He is no authority—especially when the sole person who narrates from him is someone whose very identity is unknown.”

Al-Dhahabī was referring to this same Ibrāhīm, who is a majhūl al-ʿayn (an unidentified narrator). Ibn Ḥibbān himself hints at this in Muʿān’s entry in al-Duʿafāʾ, 3/36: “He is objectionable in ḥadith; he transmits many mursal reports and relates from unknown individuals. His narrations bear no resemblance to those of the reliable transmitters.”

2 – Ibrāhīm ibn Ismāʿīl. Ibn Ḥibbān says (4/14–15): “He relates from Abū Hurayrah; al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yasār narrated from him.”

I say: This al-Ḥajjāj—also known as Ibn ʿUbayd—the ḥāfiẓ judged him “unknown.” The same verdict was issued earlier by Abū Ḥātim and others, as recorded by al-Dhahabī in the Mizān, where he explains the reason: “Layth ibn Abī Sulaym is the only one who narrated from him!” And Layth himself is weak and muddled, a point acknowledged even by Ibn Ḥibbān (2/231).

3 – Ibrāhīm al-Anṣārī. Ibn Ḥibbān states (4/15): “He reports from Maslamah ibn Mukhlad… his son Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm narrated from him.”

I say: This Ismāʿīl is unknown, as the ḥāfiẓ—and before him Abū Ḥātim—affirmed.

From this analysis it is clear that, in Ibn Ḥibbān’s view, the anonymity of a narrator’s identity is removed merely by the fact that a single person has reported from him—even if that person is weak or himself unknown. This runs counter to the apparent sense of the ḥāfiẓ’s earlier remark, although