How, then, can the shaykh’s statement be correct: “The leading scholars have continued to declare al-Ghāfiqī’s hadiths weak”?!
As for Ibn Lahīʿah, he spoke of him only in general terms and gave no detail, thereby giving readers the impression that his hadiths cannot be used as evidence at all. But that is not so. The hadith authorities explicitly stated that his hadith is sound when one of the ʿAbd Allāhs narrates from him. The shaykh, therefore, ought to have qualified his statement rather than making it unconditionally; and he should have investigated the routes of transmission of the hadith in his well-stocked library, for perhaps he would have found a route narrated by one of them. Allah the Exalted enabled me to find Ibn Wahb’s narration from him. It was transmitted by al-Fasawī in History and Knowledge (2/301), and by Ibn ʿAsākir in History of Damascus (1/114, Damascus edition). Thus, praise be to Allah, the hadith is sound through this route alone. How then when al-Ghāfiqī also corroborated him, being trustworthy and having good hadiths, as mentioned above? And how then when both of them were corroborated by ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith—the eminent memorizer, trustworthy narrator, and jurist—as will be explained there.
Second: the shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—overlooked, or perhaps simply failed to notice, the principle that a hadith may be strengthened by corroborating reports and supporting evidence. Regrettably, this is an error into which many novice critics fall. Ibn Lahīʿah is among those whose reports the scholars cite as corroborative evidence. Strangely, the shaykh himself mentioned that Muslim transmitted his report alongside another narrator’s, yet he did not realize—may Allah have mercy on him—that he was citing evidence against himself!
Third and finally: another of his peculiarities is that he also declared the hadith defective on the grounds that al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Usāmah occurs in al-Ḥākim’s chain. Although he was mistaken in declaring him weak, as I established there, he also overlooked the fact that al-Ḥākim paired him with two other trustworthy narrators. Even if he had been weak, as he alleged, this would not have impaired the hadith’s soundness, for his narration is corroborated by those two and by others, as I explained there.
There are other errors and misconceptions which the reader will encounter, Allah the Exalted willing. I have confined myself to mentioning what relates to his declaring the hadith weak, in defence of the bearers of hadith, to establish its soundness, and to remind readers that writing in this noble discipline—whether to authenticate