is not of the kind of inconsistency by which a hadith is weakened, for the various forms of inconsistency are not equally strong, as is known to one well versed in hadith methodology. In sum, Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz’s confusion likewise does not impair the soundness of the hadith.

As for Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s statement concerning the hadith and the narration of Ibn Abī ʿUmayrah—“His status as a Companion is not established, nor is the chain of transmission of his hadith proven”—although al-Ḥāfiẓ endorsed it in al-Tahdhīb, he refuted it most effectively in al-Iṣābah, expressing surprise at it. In his biographical entry, he cited several hadiths in which direct hearing from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is explicitly stated. He then said: “Although none of these hadiths has a chain entirely free of criticism, taken together they establish ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s status as a Companion. Thus Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s statement is astonishing.” He then cited it, and Ibn Fatḥūn objected, saying: “I do not know what this is. Marwān ibn Muḥammad al-Ṭāṭarī and Abū Mushir both narrated from Rabīʿah ibn Yazīd that he heard ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī ʿUmayrah say that he heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, say:”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “Ibn Fatḥūn failed to add: Even if it be supposed that Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr found a defect of discontinuity in this hadith to which he alluded, what is he to make of the remaining hadiths that explicitly state his direct hearing from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him? What more than this could establish his status as a Companion, especially when the first hadith has no defect other than inconsistency …” And so forth from his preceding words.

I say: It is therefore no wonder that Abū Ḥātim and Ibn al-Sakan stated decisively that he was a Companion, and that al-Bukhārī, Ibn Saʿd, Ibn al-Barqī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and ʿAbd al-Ṣamad ibn Saʿīd mentioned him among the Companions, while Abū al-Ḥasan ibn Samīʿ placed him in the first rank of the Companions who settled in Homs, as recorded in Ibn Ḥajar’s al-Iṣābah. It is astonishing that he did not mention these statements—or at least some of them—in al-Tahdhīb, even though this is the weightier view, while recording there Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s aforementioned statement, which is the weaker view.

This shows the researcher that the scope for correcting him and other scholars remains open, in accordance with the maxim: How much have the earlier scholars left for the later ones!