despite his righteousness and devotion, and he was not accused of dishonesty. Some scholars weakened only his narrations from ʿAbd Allah ibn Dinar. Abu Dawud said:

“His hadiths are sound, except those from ʿAbd Allah ibn Dinar.”

Wakiʿ said:

“He was trustworthy, but he narrated from ʿAbd Allah ibn Dinar hadiths for which he was not corroborated.”

In one report, Ibn Maʿin said:

“His hadith was weakened only because he narrated objectionable reports from ʿAbd Allah ibn Dinar.”

In another report from him:

“He is weak, though his hadiths concerning spiritual exhortation may be recorded.”

These statements lead me to conclude that he is among those whose reports may be used as corroboration. Perhaps al-Tirmidhi’s statement concerning him, “He is deemed weak,” alludes to this, especially since he said after this hadith:

“A good hadith, singular through this route.”

This is an explicit statement from him that his hadiths are good, and that his saying, “He is deemed weak,” does not mean that he is weak without qualification. Perhaps his basis for this was Ahmad’s statement in one report from him:

“There was no harm in him, but he narrated objectionable hadiths. As for matters of what is lawful and forbidden, we required men like this,” and he brought his hands together.

I say: Perhaps al-Tirmidhi’s aforementioned grading of it as good falls under this category, namely, that it does not concern what is lawful and forbidden. Otherwise, it reflects his well-known leniency; thus, it would have been preferable for him not to add anything to his statement: