as a corroborating report, as al-Hafiz states in al-Tahdhib. There is disagreement concerning him: Ahmad, Ibn Ma‘in, Abu Khaythamah, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Hibban, and al-Bazzar all declared him trustworthy, whereas ‘Abd al-Samad ibn ‘Abd al-Warith deemed him weak. Al-‘Uqayli said: “He has more than one hadith in which he is not corroborated.” Al-Daraqutni said: “His reports may be considered for corroboration.” Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: “They do not regard him as strong.” Ibn ‘Adi said: “I have not seen any objectionable hadith from him, and I hope that there is no harm in him.”

I say: It is noteworthy that the early and well-known imams unanimously declared him trustworthy; none of them deemed him weak apart from ‘Abd al-Samad ibn ‘Abd al-Warith, who, despite being trustworthy himself, is not—to my knowledge—known for narrator criticism and accreditation. As for the others who deemed him weak, they gave no reason for such criticism, except for al-‘Uqayli’s statement: “He has more than one hadith in which he is not corroborated.” This is not disqualifying criticism, for many trustworthy narrators may rightly be described in such terms, since they have reports in which they alone narrated and were not corroborated.

Still, the man may have had some weakness and poor retention, which lowered his hadith below the rank of authentic; for this reason Muslim cited him as corroborative evidence. Perhaps Ibn ‘Adi alluded to this when he said, “There is no harm in him,” as did al-Dhahabi when he said of him in al-Mizan: “Acceptable in hadith.”