“Rushdayn ibn Saʿd is not particular about whom he narrates from, but he is a righteous man.” Haytham ibn Kharijah—who was present in the gathering—then declared him trustworthy. Abu ʿAbd Allah smiled and said: “There is no harm in his hadiths of spiritual admonition.”

Al-ʿUqayli recorded it (2/67).

Third: the report of Harb ibn Ismaʿil, who said:

I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal about Rushdayn ibn Saʿd. He declared him weak and preferred Ibn Lahiʿah to him.

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded it (1/2/513).

Fourth: the report of ʿAbd Allah ibn Ahmad, who said: I heard my father say:

“Rushdayn ibn Saʿd: such and such.”

Al-ʿUqayli recorded it (2/66), as did Ibn ʿAdi.

I say: From setting out these reports, it becomes clear that they all agree in declaring him weak, except for the first report. Even that contains no definitive statement from the Imam accrediting him; it merely expresses hope, which plainly does not establish certainty.

This is the first point.

Second, even if we were to suppose that it does establish certainty, the way to reconcile this report with the other reports is that the accreditation came before his weakness had become clear to him. If adverse criticism takes precedence over accreditation in differing statements from the hadith authorities—because the critic possesses additional knowledge, and one who knows is proof against one who does not—then this is likewise the means of reconciling differing statements from a single Imam. From this, the error of al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami in unconditionally attributing this accreditation to Ahmad becomes clear, thereby giving the impression