So this is a ḥadīth he himself transmitted, built his legal position upon, and cited as evidence; yet—in Hanbal’s recension—he afterwards remarked, “This ḥadīth is munkar.”

This is an exceedingly broad topic (1); if we were to trace all its instances, it would swell into a sizeable book.

The point is that not everything he narrates and then leaves without comment is therefore sound in his view; and even if he did regard it as sound, should another scholar differ with him on its grading, his judgment is not binding on his peer.

On this basis the error of the ḥadīth expert Abū Mūsā al-Madīnī becomes clear when he said, “Whatever Imām Aḥmad included in his Musnad is, according to him, sound.” (2)

Aḥmad never said that, nor anything implying it. Indeed, he voiced the opposite, as Abū al-ʿIzz ibn Kādish (3) reported: “ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad asked his father, ‘What do you say about the ḥadīth of Ribʿī from Ḥudhayfah?’ He replied, ‘The one related by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Abī Rawwād?’ I said, ‘Is it authentic?’ He answered, ‘No; other ḥadīths contradict it,’”