First: Ibn Lahīʿah. In al-Ḥijāb I have already pointed out that his reports may be cited as corroborative evidence, and that this is precisely the practice of the hadith masters—such as Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him—as will be shown on p. 96.

Second: ʿIyāḍ ibn ʿAbd Allāh. Al-ʿAdawī mentioned the scholarly disagreement over him and noted that most critics rated him “weak.” Yet, as you can see, this does not mean that he is gravely weak; he stands on the same footing as Ibn Lahīʿah, as indicated by al-Ḥāfiẓ’s verdict in al-Taqrīb: “He is soft” (i.e., mildly weak). That, in fact, is why al-ʿAdawī avoided him.

Third: the narrator’s remark, “I think it is from Asmāʾ….” He said, “and this weakens the chain.”

I reply: By no means, for what is intended here is a preponderant assumption, and acting on such an assumption is mandatory—as established in legal theory. Moreover, that wording appears only in al-Bayhaqī’s version, not in al-Ṭabarānī’s Muʿjam al-Awsat, even though the route is identical, nor in his Muʿjam al-Kabīr, which comes through a separate route via Ibn Lahīʿah.

Even granting that the wording is firmly established, on what basis do you claim it implies the severe weakness you allege? The straightforward meaning is that the narrator thinks—i.e., deems it most likely—that the ḥadith goes back to Asmāʾ or to some other Companion; at worst he is unsure whether it is musnad (fully linked to a Companion) or mursal (missing the Companion). Does that make the chain “extremely weak”? Or is it merely caprice that blinds and deafens?

What further supports my reading of a sound, preponderant assumption is that ʿUbayd ibn Rafāʿah—the transmitter from Asmāʾ—is in fact well known for narrating from her. ⦗87⦘