the extremely weak narrator! Even if such resemblance is sufficient to convince expert critics, it is not sufficient to convince others who are satisfied with the narrator’s truthfulness, retention, and precision, and who either did not perceive that resemblance or did perceive it but did not consider it at all correct to make it a disqualifying hidden defect for which the hadith should be rejected and the one advancing that criticism deferred to—especially when doing so conflicts with another principle, more important and stronger than the one upon which Ibn Rajab based his rejection of this hadith: the additional report of a trustworthy narrator is accepted. One who has retained something is proof against one who has not retained it.

What prevents the hadith from having been narrated from Abu Sa‘id al-Maqburi by each of his two sons—Sa‘id, the trustworthy narrator, and ‘Abdullah, the weak narrator—and ‘Asim having received the hadith from both of them? Thus, he would sometimes narrate it from Sa‘id, which Abu Bakr al-Hanafi retained from him; and at other times from ‘Abdullah, which Mu‘adh ibn Mu‘adh retained from him. There is certainly nothing to prevent this explanation; indeed, it must be accepted in order to preserve the principle we have mentioned, because of its strength and consistency. The other principle, by contrast, is neither consistently applicable nor precisely defined, as is evident to anyone possessing understanding and knowledge of this noble discipline.

The mere fact that a trustworthy narrator’s hadith resembles that of a weak narrator does not, according to sound scholarship, indicate that the trustworthy narrator’s report is actually the weak narrator’s report, or that the trustworthy narrator erred in it. A weak narrator may relate something resembling the hadiths of trustworthy narrators, in accordance with the principle: “He has told you the truth, though he is a liar.” How, then, can we reject the hadith of a trustworthy narrator merely because it resembles that of a weak narrator? The correct approach is rather the opposite: to accept from a weak narrator whatever in his hadith resembles and agrees with the hadith of a trustworthy narrator. Indeed, a narrator whose retention and precision are unknown can only be evaluated by comparing his hadiths with those of trustworthy narrators: whatever agrees with them is accepted, and whatever contradicts and differs from them is discarded. This is a well-known principle in hadith terminology.

Further supporting the authenticity of this hadith, and that Abu Bakr al-Hanafi retained it—and that it is not solely among the reports of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘id—is the statement of Imam Malik in al-Muwatta’ (2/940/5):

“From Zayd ibn Aslam, from ‘Ata ibn Yasar, that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘When a servant falls ill, Allah Most High sends two angels to him and says: “See what he says to those who visit him. If, when they come to him, he offers praise—”