those known for transmitting knowledge, and their hadith cannot be relied upon (1) even in the most minor matters—how, then, could it be relied upon in a matter such as this? Nor does this chain establish that the woman heard it from (2) Asmā’ bint ‘Umays. Perhaps she heard someone recount it on Asmā’s authority and then related it herself.

This compiler stated that Ibn Abī Fudayk was trustworthy and that al-Qatrī was trustworthy, but he was unable (3) to say that the narrators after them were trustworthy; he merely mentioned their lineages. Simply knowing a man’s lineage does not establish that he is a trustworthy narrator with accurate retention.

As for the second chain of transmission, it hinges on Fudayl ibn Marzūq, who is known for making errors when narrating from trustworthy narrators, although he does not deliberately lie (4).

Ibn Hibbān said of him:
“He makes errors when narrating from trustworthy narrators and transmits fabricated reports from ‘Atiyya (5).”

Abū Hātim al-Rāzī (6) said of him:
“He cannot be relied upon as evidence.”

Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn once said of him:
“He is weak.”

This is not contradicted by Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s statement about him, “I know nothing but good of him,” or by Sufyān’s statement, “He is trustworthy,” or by Yahyā’s statement (7) on another occasion, “He is trustworthy” (8); for he is not someone who deliberately lies, but he