“she transmits oddities.” Yet that remark is not enough to dismiss everything she has reported, for Aflat and Qudamah ibn ʿAbd ibn ʿAbduh al-ʿAmiri narrated from her.

I ask: So what of it? This same Qudamah is not well-known either. In al-Taqrib one reads: “It is said that he is Fulayt al-ʿAmiri—maqbul (acceptable).”

Tahdhib, in the list of those who relate from him, mentions a man called Mahduj, who—as noted earlier—is unknown, and ʿAmr ibn ʿUmayr ibn Mahduj, for whom I found no biographical entry at all.

To sum up: everyone who transmits from Jassarah is not known for uprightness—Aflat being the lone exception—so how can their narrations from her be taken as an endorsement of her reliability? Admittedly, both al-ʿAjli and Ibn Ḥibbān declared her trustworthy, and the latter even placed her in his Thiqat, but the leniency of Ibn Ḥibbān—and likewise of al-ʿAjli—is familiar to anyone who follows their evaluations of controversial transmitters. For that reason al-Hafiz (Ibn Ḥajar), although he cites their words in Tahdhib, does not rely on them; instead, in Taqrib he writes, “She is maqbulah (acceptable),”

meaning that her hadith is weak when she is the sole narrator, as he states in the introduction: “Category Six: one who has narrated only a few reports and against whom nothing has been established that would require abandoning his hadith; this is indicated by the term maqbul (acceptable) when he is corroborated, otherwise his hadith is soft (weak).”

From what has been clarified above, you can see that al-Shawkani’s assertion—following Ibn Khuzaymah—that the hadith is sound is itself unsound, and his statement