—namely Ṣāliḥ, the freedman of al-Tuʾamah. His trustworthiness is disputed, yet the principal criticism leveled against him is that his transmissions became mixed up in his later years. The critics further mention that Ibn Abī Dhʿīb and others of his peers heard from him before this confusion set in, and the ḥadith under discussion is one of those narrated from him by Ibn Abī Dhʿīb.

I say: In al-Taqrīb it is stated: “He is truthful, but his memory became confused toward the end. Ibn ʿAdī said: ‘There is no harm in the narrations of the early students who took from him, such as Ibn Abī Dhʿīb and Ibn Jurayj.’”

I say: If Ibn Abī Dhʿīb transmitted from him before the confusion—and this ḥadith comes to us through that earlier transmission—how, then, can the ḥadith be deemed weak? For this reason Ibn al-Qayyim—may Allah have mercy on him—said in Zād al-Maʿād, after citing the verdicts of the leading scholars which revolve around Ibn ʿAdī’s assessment: “This ḥadith is ḥasan, for it is related by Ibn Abī Dhʿīb from him, and Ibn Abī Dhʿīb’s hearing from him was early, prior to the confusion; therefore, the later confusion does not warrant rejecting what he narrated before it.”

I say: This verdict would stand were it not for the fact that Ibn Abī Dhʿīb also heard from him subsequently. Al-Tirmidhī relates, from al-Bukhārī, from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, that “Ibn Abī Dhʿīb heard from Ṣāliḥ at a later time as well and reported from him a munkar narration.” Ibn al-Qaṭṭān quoted these words from al-Tirmidhī verbatim.

I say: This explains why Aḥmad judged the ḥadith weak: Ibn Abī Dhʿīb also narrated from Ṣāliḥ after the latter’s memory had become confused. It was likely on this basis that Ibn Ḥibbān said in Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ: