If it is objected:

The first hadith was narrated by ‘Umar ibn Abī Salamah, concerning whom ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī said, “Shu‘bah abandoned him, and he is not particularly strong.” Ibn Sa‘d said, “He narrated many hadiths, but his hadiths are not relied upon as evidence.” Al-Sa‘dī and al-Nasā’ī said, “He is not strong in hadith.”

The second includes Abū Sālih Bādhām, the freedman of Umm Hāni’, whom the scholars have graded weak. Ahmad said, “Ibn Mahdī had abandoned Abū Sālih’s hadiths.” Abū Hātim said, “His hadiths may be recorded, but are not relied upon as evidence.”

Ibn ‘Adī said, “Most of what he narrates concerns Quranic commentary; he has very few reports traced back to the Prophet. I know of none of the earlier scholars who approved of him.”

I reply:

There are several ways to answer this objection. First, each of these two men was declared reliable by a number of scholars, just as others criticized him. As for ‘Umar, Ahmad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-‘Ijlī said concerning him, “There is nothing wrong with him.” Likewise, Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn said, “There is nothing wrong with him.” Ibn Ma‘īn and Abū Hātim were among the most stringent scholars in declaring narrators reliable.

As for the statement, “Shu‘bah abandoned him,” it means that he did not narrate from him. As Ahmad ibn Hanbal said, “Shu‘bah did not hear anything from ‘Umar ibn Abī Salamah.” Shu‘bah, Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd, ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī, Mālik, and others like them would refrain from narrating hadith from certain people because of some suspicion conveyed to them that did not warrant rejecting