What is the basis for Abu Hatim preferring Ibn Lahi'ah's additional narration over the other deficient ones, given that he is poor in memory?

The questioner : I wrote here in the question that it is known that a weak narrator is suspected of error when he adds to the chain of narration. May Allah reward you. When a weak man adds to the chain of narration and increases in it, the scholars either say he elevated it, or that he added to the chains, or something else. However, Abu Hatim al-Razi preferred the statement of Ibn Lahi'ah because he added a man to the chain of narration who indicates a break in another deficient narration. He said, "Because in Ibn Lahi'ah's narration there is an additional man. If it had been a reduction of a man, it would have been easier for Ibn Lahi'ah to memorize." This is found in al-Razi's *Al-Ilal*, Part One, page 271. It was there, and I wanted to read the example.

The Shaykh : Okay, who is the one who contradicts Ibn Lahi'ah?

The questioner : ... This will require the book, because we are only being referred to it.

The Shaykh : I mean, it is correct that it is needed.

The questioner : Part One of *Al-Ilal*.

The Shaykh : But when you quoted this...

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : It is supposed to have been in your mind and on your tongue.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : That is, why does Abu Hatim al-Razi prefer Ibn Lahi'ah's narration with such a justification, while the one who contradicts him by dropping the man is either a trustworthy narrator.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Or, in a phrase that is perhaps more precise, more trustworthy than Ibn Lahi'ah, or equal to him, or lower than him.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So if it is the first case, there is no basis at all for such a preference or preference of one over the other.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : If it is the first case.

The questioner : If he is more trustworthy than Ibn Lahi'ah, there is no basis for what Abu Hatim said.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : Okay.

The Shaykh : But if he is like Ibn Lahi'ah, this statement of the Hafiz is acceptable if he is like Ibn Lahi'ah.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And a fortiori if he is lower than him.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And therefore, we would have liked to benefit from this observation by knowing the status and biography of the narrator who contradicted Ibn Lahi'ah.

The questioner : Okay, I refer you, my Shaykh, to the books, as this is among the issues where we need the books. Because in some issues, you asked me to read the examples to you. This, if Allah wills, I will add to them.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : If you have more in the answer, we will listen, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : If Allah wills, but you mentioned that he mentioned, I mean, the opposing narrator.

The questioner : Yes, he was asked about the hadith, and he said, "So-and-so narrated it thus and thus, deficiently."

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner : And Ibn Lahi'ah narrated it and added.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : He said, "If this narration had been the original one, which is deficient, it would have been easier for Ibn Lahi'ah to memorize, because he is poor in memory. But since he paid attention to memorizing the additional one, this is proof that he memorized it. And he used this memorization as evidence for the break in the first deficient narration. But who is the narrator who contradicted Ibn Lahi'ah? If Allah wills, by referring to the book."

The Shaykh: May Allah will it.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.