had been deemed trustworthy by the majority of the early hadith masters, including al-Bukhārī. None of them declared him weak except Aḥmad, in one report; for he said what al-Bayhaqī said. Yet this does not mean that he was “weak,” as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr categorically stated; for there is a well-known difference between saying that someone is “not strong” and declaring him “weak”—especially since, in another report, Aḥmad said of him: “Trustworthy.” Ibn Maʿīn likewise declared him trustworthy. This is why the two Shaykhs included his reports in their two Ṣaḥīḥ collections: he has unquestionably passed the threshold.

The second objection is similarly weak, for such a discrepancy carries no weight; indeed, it should not even be mentioned. Even if Saʿīd ibn Sālim were trustworthy, his disagreement with the three trustworthy narrators mentioned earlier should not be considered—especially the imam al-Shāfiʿī. How then, when he himself has been criticized on account of his retention?

The same applies, with even greater reason, to the corroboration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad al-Shāmī—though the Sunan of al-Bayhaqī reads: “al-Shāfiʿī”—for he is unknown in the biographical works on narrators. It is possible that he is the one mentioned in al-Mīzān: “ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥajar al-Shāmī, a resident of Raʾs al-ʿAyn; al-Azdī declared him weak.” Al-Ḥāfiẓ added in al-Lisān that Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt and said: “He relates odd reports and narrates singly.” Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in its fourth tier (8/349).

Then, even if we concede for argument’s sake that such a discrepancy has any appreciable value, preference may be given on the basis of