their reports. Thus, when they narrated from someone, their narration amounted to declaring him reliable. Refraining from narrating from someone, however, could be due to a suspicion that did not warrant criticism of his reliability. This is well known in the case of several narrators whose reports appear in the authentic collections.

Likewise, the statement, “He is not strong in hadith,” is a mild expression suggesting that there may have been some deterioration in his memory. In their usage, such an expression implies neither deliberate lying nor excessive error.

As for Abū Sālih, Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Qattān said, “I have not seen any of our fellow scholars abandon Abū Sālih, the freedman of Umm Hāni’, nor have I heard anyone say anything against him. Neither Shu‘bah nor Zā’idah abandoned him.” Thus, Shu‘bah’s narration from him amounts to declaring him reliable, as is known from Shu‘bah’s customary practice. Ibn Mahdī’s abandonment of him does not outweigh this, for Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd was more knowledgeable than Ibn Mahdī about hidden defects in hadith and the narrators. Indeed, hadith scholars agree that Shu‘bah and Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd were more knowledgeable about narrators than Ibn Mahdī and others like him.

As for Abū Hātim’s statement, “His hadiths may be recorded, but are not relied upon as evidence,” Abū Hātim says similar things about many narrators found in the two Sahīh collections. This is because his criteria for declaring narrators reliable are stringent, and what qualifies as authoritative evidence in his terminology differs from what qualifies as such for the majority of scholars.