“Ibn Abi Dhi’b said: Shurahbil ibn Sa‘d was suspected [of dishonesty]. Ibn Ma‘in said: ‘Weak.’ Malik said: ‘He is not trustworthy.’ Sufyan said: ‘No one was more knowledgeable than him regarding those who took part in Badr. He fell into poverty, and whenever he came to a man seeking something from him and was not given it, they feared that he would say, “Your father did not take part in Badr!”’ Abu Zur‘ah said: ‘There is some weakness in him.’ Ibn Sa‘d said: ‘He lived on until he became confused in his narrations and fell into need; he is not used as proof.’ Al-Nasa’i and al-Daraqutni said: ‘Weak.’ The latter added: ‘His reports may be considered for corroboration.’ Ibn Hibban included him in his al-Thiqat, and Ibn ‘Adi said: ‘Most of what he narrates is rejected, and he is closer to weakness.’”

Ibn al-Barqi listed him under “Those Predominantly Characterized by Weakness,” as cited in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. So, after all this, one can only marvel at what Shaykh Ahmad Muhammad Shakir said in his comments on al-Musnad, after citing Sufyan’s preceding statement: “This, in my view, is the reason why those who declared him weak did so. Fairness requires that his reports be examined in matters connected with the sort of thing for which he was accused. But as for rejecting all his reports—no, not if he is truthful.” On this basis, he explicitly declared the chain of transmission of this hadith to be authentic!

It is not hidden from the discerning that the reason he proposed is merely a claim for which there is no proof. Even if it were sound, the other reason would still remain, preventing reliance on his hadith—namely, his confusion in his later narrations. It may well be for this reason that rejected reports occurred in his hadiths, as Ibn ‘Adi indicated. Declaring his hadith and narrations authentic necessarily entails dismissing the statements of those imams who criticized him, despite a clear reason for doing so; and that is not permissible, as has been established in hadith methodology.

Once you know this, do not be deceived by al-Mundhiri’s statement in al-Targhib (3/83): “Ibn Majah narrated it with an authentic chain of transmission, and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, through Shurahbil’s narration from him.” For this reason, al-Hafiz al-Naji said in ‘Ujalat al-Imla’ (169/2), in refuting him: “He was deceived by Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim’s authentication of its chain of transmission, whereas it contains Shurahbil ibn Sa‘d al-Madani”