She said, “I cannot manage that, O Messenger of Allah!” He said: “…” and then repeated the foregoing. This is Ahmad’s wording.

I say: This chain of transmission is weak because of the condition of Rushdayn, who is known to be weak; and Zaban—ibn Fa’id—is likewise weak. Al-Mundhiri said in al-Targhib (2/178/32):

“Ahmad narrated it through Rushdayn ibn Sa‘d—who, in Ahmad’s view, is trustworthy—and there is no problem with his hadith in supporting reports and reports of spiritual admonition.”

That is what he said! He overlooked the fact that it is defective on account of Zaban. Al-Haythami followed him in this, saying (5/274):

“Ahmad and al-Tabarani narrated it, and it contains Rushdayn ibn Sa‘d. Ahmad declared him trustworthy, while a group declared him weak.”

I say: The judgment that he is weak is the one to be relied upon, in accordance with the principle that adverse criticism takes precedence over accreditation—especially since this is the view of the majority. Moreover, their unqualified attribution to Ahmad of having declared him trustworthy gives the impression that Ahmad did not also declare him weak. That is not so, for the reports from him differ, as follows:

First: the accreditation they mentioned. This is the report of Ibn Shahin in his book al-Thiqat (129/352), from his teacher al-Baghawi, from Ahmad, who said:

“I hope that he is trustworthy, or sound in hadith.”

However, Ibn ‘Adi transmitted it in al-Kamil (3/149), also from his teacher al-Baghawi, without mentioning: “trustworthy, or.”

Second: the report of al-Maymuni, who said: I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah—meaning Ahmad ibn Hanbal—say: