Scholars differed whether a trustworthy critic’s narration from an otherwise unknown shaykh establishes that shaykh’s uprightness. Al-Nawawī reports that the majority reject automatic accreditation from bare narration. The narrator may have recorded the unknown source only for **iʿtibār or istishhād** (comparison/corroboration), rather than using that route as an independent **ḥujjah**; others allowed a stronger inference of approval.
For example, including an unknown shaykh’s report among routes being compared does not by itself establish that the route proves a ruling; express accreditation is a separate evidentiary act. Al-Nawawī reads Mālik’s remark about his books as evidence of **Mālik’s own** favorable assessment of someone he deliberately includes, not a declaration binding every other critic.