One illustration of this is that the person just referred to faulted our colleague al-Halabī for citing, in order to strengthen the ḥadith of ʿĀʾishah, Ibn Ḥajar’s statement in al-Talkhīṣ: “It has a corroborating report that al-Bayhaqī produced…,” after which Ibn Ḥajar quoted its chain through the ḥadith of Asmāʾ and then remained silent about it. Our colleague commented immediately afterwards (p. 39):

“It is as though he deemed the report ḥasan on the strength of that corroboration, as is well known from his methodology—may Allah have mercy on him—for a ḥadith scholar will only cite a supporting narration when, in his view, it repairs the weakness. Otherwise, what benefit is there in a corroboration that is of no use?”

The critic responded (p. 16) in substance that the early ḥadith scholars—as well as their contemporary counterparts—have always mentioned a weak or even fabricated report together with its supporting narrations, narrations that add nothing but weakness upon weakness, and that no one ever concluded from this that they thereby graded the report ḥasan. He then produced six examples: one from al-Suyūṭī’s al-Laʾālī and the remaining five from my two works al-Ḍaʿīfah and Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl. He went on to answer a question he himself posed, summing up his reply thus: the sole reason ḥadith scholars cite weak chains is to draw attention to their weakness (1).

I reply: This objection is groundless and betrays a profound ignorance of this noble science and its principles. Reinforcing a ḥadith through multiple chains—provided their weakness is not severe—is a well-established, well-trodden course among the ḥadith masters and needs no proof (1).