he paid no attention whatsoever to all of these authorities, nor to others such as Imām al-Baghawī, who likewise graded the narration sound (ḥasan) in Sharḥ al-Sunnah (14/237). Many additional scholars could be cited were one to pursue the matter. Nor did he observe their well-known principle that a ḥadīth may be strengthened when its various chains are taken together—though he had just applied that very rule to the preceding narration, as you will see under no. (11).
Instead, the person alluded to began casting doubt on this ḥadīth through the two isnāds I had mentioned. Concerning the first chain (518/23) he wrote: “It contains the anonymity of Saʿd ibn al-Akhram.”
In doing so he ignored the following facts:
- Some scholars have even counted Saʿd among the Companions.
- Ibn Ḥibbān and al-ʿAjlī declared him trustworthy.
- Its transmitters—al-Tirmidhī and al-Baghawī—judged the ḥadīth ḥasan.
- Al-Ḥākim and the other authorities cited earlier authenticated it.
He faulted the second chain by saying: “It contains Layth ibn Abī Sulaym, and he is weak.”
As though, by noting this weakness, he had discovered something previously hidden from me—despite my having already pointed it out when I said: “Its isnād is acceptable for corroboration.” My point was precisely that Layth’s weakness is not severe, and for that reason I deemed his report ḥasan when used as supporting evidence. He offered no reply to this, and such conduct is not the method of scholars who