at the gate and the gates.” I asked, “Was he trustworthy?” He remained silent, as though he regarded his standing as acceptable.

Al-Dhahabi said in al-Mīzān: “Ibn Maʿīn declared him trustworthy, while Ahmad said: ‘I reserve judgment concerning him.’ Abu Hatim said: ‘Acceptable.’ Ibn ʿAdi mentioned him in fol. 46/2 and cited three unusual hadiths from him. Al-ʿUqayli mentioned him in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ and said: ‘He is not corroborated in his hadith.’ Among the reports objected to in his case is the hadith of ʿAttāb ibn Bashīr ...” I say: He then cited it. Al-Hafiz ʿAbd al-Haqq said: “Thabit is not used as evidence.” Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Qattan took issue with him over this statement and said: “Al-ʿUqayli’s statement concerning him is likewise unduly harsh.” He then said: “This applies only (!) to someone who is not known to be trustworthy at all. As for one known to be trustworthy, his solitary narration does not harm him unless this occurs frequently from him.”

I say: This is true of one known to be trustworthy. But as for one whom some have declared trustworthy, while an imam such as Ahmad reserves judgment concerning him and Abu Hatim, when asked about him, says, “His hadith is acceptable,” we do not raise him to the rank of the trustworthy. Thus, his solitary narration is deemed rejected, which supports the view of al-ʿUqayli and ʿAbd al-Haqq.

I say: This was al-Dhahabi’s view in the disagreement mentioned above. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar differed with him and defended Ibn al-Qattan, saying in al-Tahdhīb: “He is correct, for a case such as this is not detrimental except when he contradicts trustworthy narrators; only then would his hadith be anomalous.”

I say: I also hold that the correct view is that of al-Hafiz, may Allah have mercy on him, for Ahmad’s reserve concerning Thabit is not equivalent to declaring him weak. Even if he had declared him weak, this would not have harmed him in the face of the trustworthiness affirmed by those who did so, since it would have been unexplained criticism and therefore inadmissible. How then, when he did not explicitly declare him weak? It was perhaps for this reason that al-Suyuti indicated in al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr that it was good. Its commentator al-Manawi said: “Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: ‘There is some discussion concerning its chain of transmission.’ Zayn al-Din al-ʿIraqi said in his Commentary on al-Tirmidhi: ‘Its chain of transmission is good; its narrators are among al-Bukhari’s narrators, and it includes Thabit ibn ʿAjlan ...’ The compiler did well to limit himself to declaring it good. Ibn al-Qattan said: ‘The hadith has an authentic chain of transmission through ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, from his father, from his grandfather.’”