Moreover, the disconnected reports transmitted by Yazid ibn Ruman and Yahya ibn Saʿid al-Ansari cannot be said to reinforce one another, for the very condition that permits mutual corroboration is that the teachers of each transmitter be different from those of the other. That condition has not been established here, since both reporters—Yazid and Ibn Saʿid—were Medinese; the stronger likelihood, therefore, is that they shared at least one common source.

It is thus entirely possible that the shaykh from whom they both received this narration was in fact a single individual, and that he is either unknown or weak, in which case no proof can be built upon his report. It is also conceivable that they each took it from two different shaykhs, yet both of them were weak and hence of no consequence. Another possibility is that the two shaykhs were Ibn Khuṣayfa and Ibn Abi Dhiyab, who are likewise Medinese and who have already been shown to have erred in this narration. In that event, the transmissions of Yazid and Ibn Saʿid would likewise be erroneous.

All of these scenarios are possible and plausible; and whenever such uncertainty exists, the inference collapses. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: ⦗67⦘