This, too, is a mistake; for declaring a transmitter weak with respect to a certain teacher or to a particular report (1) in which an error has been discovered does not oblige us to dismiss all of his narrations (2) without exception. The leading hadith critics proceed with nuance and precision: they weigh a man’s reports against those of others and distinguish between what he alone relates and what trustworthy narrators corroborate.

These observations are useful at this point, for they explain how hadith criticism is conducted—how to discern the sound from the unsound, the unblemished from the flawed. But whoever is not granted light by Allah (3) will have no light.

They say: Such, then, is the case of this hadith and its transmitter.

As for your claim that Muslim narrated from Sufyan ibn Husayn in his Ṣaḥīḥ, that is not as you have asserted. Muslim cited him only in the introduction to his book, and in that introduction he did not bind himself to the standard of authenticity he required for the rest of the work. The introduction therefore has its own status, and the remainder of the Ṣaḥīḥ another; the hadith scholars harbour no doubt about this.

They further say: Al-Bukhārī’s citing him (4) as corroborative evidence in the Ṣaḥīḥ does not prove (5) that he regarded him as authoritative, for in witness-reports and follow-up chains concessions are made that would never be accepted in primary isnāds. Indeed, al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ adduced as supporting evidence narrations