The Shaykh’s explanation that Ibn Lahi’ah’s hadith is only valid when narrated by the ‘Abdullahs, because they narrated from him before his books burned

The Shaykh :“And his hadith is valid if one of the ‘Abdullahs narrates from him” His hadith is valid if the ‘Abdullahs narrate from him, meaning ‘Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Misri, ‘Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Misri, and ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak al-Marwazi. All of these are among the shaykhs of Imam Ahmad. When these ‘Abdullahs narrate a hadith from ‘Abdullah ibn Lahi’ah, it is a valid hadith. What is the reason? They said these men narrated from Abu Lahi’ah before his books burned. This is where the precision of the hadith scholars in screening men and investigating and researching their conditions reaches. ‘Abdullah ibn Lahi’ah is truthful but has poor memory, because his memory deteriorated after his books burned. But these trustworthy ‘Abdullahs only narrated from him before his books burned, meaning when they were receiving hadiths from him and listening to him, he was preparing them from his books which had not yet burned. So he would deliver the hadith as he had memorized it from his books. After his books burned, as we said, some errors appeared in his hadiths. So the scholars, specifically the most precise among them, said: Ibn Lahi’ah’s hadith, if it is not from the route of one of the ‘Abdullahs whose names we mentioned earlier, is classified in the rank of a weak hadith, not severely weak.
Rather, it is a moderate weakness such that it can be strengthened by its coming from another route. In fact, some scholars grade his hadith as good simply because Ibn Lahi’ah is in it, saying it is a good hadith. And this is at a time when we witness that this is leniency, because most scholars ruled on his hadith as weak. But should his hadith not be at least good when it has a corroborating narration? For example, in Sunan Abu Dawud, from the hadith of ‘Aishah. There is no accused narrator in this hadith, only a break in the chain above, and a slight weakness in the memory of a narrator named Sa‘id ibn Bashir. So if Ibn Lahi’ah’s hadith does not deserve to be graded good in its own right, it at least deserves to be graded good by virtue of another when it has a corroborating narration. So when we cite this hadith, we do not cite it by looking only at the hadith that Abu Dawud narrated from ‘Aishah with the weak chain, but we cite it with this additional route of ‘Abdullah ibn Lahi’ah, which is in the Sunan of Imam al-Bayhaqi. Finally, does this hadith not gain in strength and validity by our recalling the authentic hadiths we mentioned earlier, the last of which is the hadith of al-Khath‘amiyyah, when al-Fadl was looking at her and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say to her because covering the face is an ‘awrah? No, rather he approved her doing so. This confirms the hadith of ‘Aishah and the hadith of Asma’ bint ‘Umayd, which says .