earlier. Thus, this contains no unqualified declaration that Yahya is weak.
8–10. These examples to which the writer referred may be answered in much the same way as above.
- I say: What is stated in this section by the two hadith masters, al-Iraqi and al-Asqalani, supports our explanation of Yahya ibn Ayyub’s standing. Their statement, “There is criticism of him, but he is truthful,” and al-Hafiz’s statement in al-Taqrib, “Truthful; he may sometimes err,” plainly indicate that his errors were few. A narrator whose uprightness and trustworthiness have been established is not to have his hadith rejected merely because he erred in some reports.
In summary, the imams differed regarding Yahya. Some declared him trustworthy without qualification; some said that he was trustworthy and a hadith master; some said that he was not to be cited as proof; some said that he had a poor memory; and some said that he might occasionally be deficient in his retention. I have not found anyone who unreservedly declared him weak. In such a case, no student of knowledge may—except through heedlessness—incline either to categorically discrediting him or to categorically declaring him reliable. Rather, these apparently conflicting statements must be reconciled where possible; otherwise, disparaging criticism takes precedence over accreditation. The latter is what the esteemed writer has done, whereas the former is the position adopted by the hadith masters al-Dhahabi, al-Iraqi, and al-Asqalani, and it is the view I choose: his hadith are good, neither authentic nor weak, unless an error on his part becomes evident. In this case, however, we have ascertained that he was correct, through Ibn Lahi'ah’s corroboration of him, as mentioned above, and through the corroboration of others, as will follow.
-
Ibn Lahi'ah’s case requires detail, which was mentioned previously in the response to the second point, so there is no need to repeat it here.
-
“If this hadith revolves around these two men ... how, then, can it be authentic?”
I say: We have established that Ibn Ayyub’s hadith are good. If that is so, then his hadith unquestionably rises to the rank of authentic through Ibn Lahi'ah’s corroboration. Even if it were assumed that he was weak in hadith, like Ibn Lahi'ah, their combined transmission of it would raise the hadith to the level of good through external corroboration, as noted at the beginning of this article. Moreover, the hadith is authentic, as I stated in Takhrij al-Fada'il (Documentation of the Virtues), for both of them were corroborated by