Introduction
المقدمة
In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Beneficent - All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and the [praiseworthy] end is for those who fear Him; and may Allah send blessings upon Muhammad, seal of the Prophets, and upon all the Prophets and Messengers.
As for what follows:
Indeed you mentioned, may Allah have mercy on you, by the guidance of your Creator, that you were interested in an examination of what is known of all the transmitted reports on authority of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him, regarding traditions of the Dīn, its rulings, and everything from it regarding rewards, punishments, motivations, admonishments, and other descriptive topics through chains of narration which were related by and circulated between Ahl ul-Ilm.
Thus you wished, may Allah guide you aright, to be informed about all of [the transmitted reports] in the form of a calculated composition and you asked me to abridge [it] for you in writing without a great amount of repetition. You allege that [much repetition] would distract you from what you intended in terms of understanding and deriving rulings from [the reports].
And because of that which you have asked, may Allah be generous with you, when I am attributed to its successful management and whatever condition can be construed by it, if Allah wills, (it will lead to) a praiseworthy ending and obtainable benefit.
I thought at the time you asked me to undertake that [task]- if it was determined for me to do so, and preordained for me to complete it- that the first to benefit from that would be me specifically before anyone else and this is due to a great number of reasons which are too lengthy to describe except [to say] that in summary, having precision regarding a select few [narrations], and accuracy in them, is easier for a person than to undertake of a great number of them, and especially for one who is indistinguishable in it from the common people [in this matter] unless someone else informs him of the distinction.
If the matter is just as we described, then focusing on the few authentic narrations is worthier for them than seeking an abundance of weak narrations. Although indeed it is hoped for that some benefit is attained by seeking after a large number [of Ḥadīth] of this type, and gathering the repetitions for them, but only for the elite who are endowed with some awareness and knowledge in their means [of ascertaining authenticity] and defects.
Thus that, if Allah wills, will happen through whatever will be brought to bear of that [awareness, distinction, knowledge of the means, and defects] on the advantage in seeking large numbers of [the various categories of Ḥadīth]. And as for the common people who are different from the elite in terms of awareness and knowledge, then it is senseless for them to seek large numbers [of various categories of Ḥadīth], while they are unaware of the few [Sahīh].
Then we, if Allah wills, will begin to extract and compose what you have asked upon conditions which we shall mention to you. We set ourselves upon the entirety of what is transmitted from the reports on authority of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him. Then we divided it up into three sections and three levels of people without repetition except:
1) When coming to a point where it was essential to repeat a narration in which there is an addition that clarifies the meaning of the first one; or
2) When there is a second chain that supports the first one in some hidden defect present since the additional significance in the second Ḥadīth assumes the position of a complete Ḥadīth.
Repeating narrations which have the kind of ‘addition’ we described is inevitable [since it eliminates the perceived hidden defect of the first narration]; or that significance [of the addition] is separated from the entire narration by abbreviating it when it is possible [to understand the significance from a small part of the narration], however separating the relevant part of the narration from the rest might make it difficult to understand the link between them, so repeating it in its original form when that proves difficult is safest.
Thus when we find that it is avoidable to repeat the narrations in their entirety we take care not to do so, if Allah wills.
As for the first category, we aspired to advance the report which is safer from defects than any others, and is purified due to being related by people of integrity in Ḥadīth, and certitude for what they relate; there are no strong disputes found [compared to the reports of other Thiqāt] regarding their transmissions, and no excessive inconsistencies [in their own reports] - just as is the case regarding a great number of Muhaddithīn and which appears in their narrations.
Thus when we examined reports of this description from the people, we also came across reports in whose chains there fell some of those who are not described with memorization and precision, like those of the previous description before them. Although they fell below what we described [from the first group], they still have the designation of protection [from ill-repute] and truthfulness; and they acquired knowledge, included among them are the likes of Atā’ bin is-Sā’ib, and Yazīd bin Abī Ziyād, and Layth bin Abī Sulaym, from among the carriers of Āthār and the relaters of Akhbār.
So even though they possessed what we described of knowledge, protection and being known as scholars among Ahl ul-Ilm, their contemporaries who we mentioned as precise and sound in transmission were above them in status and rank because this [the first category] is a high rank and sublime characteristic according to Ahl ul-Ilm.
Do you not see that when you weigh these three people we mentioned- Atā’, Yazīd, and Layth- with Mansūr bin il-Mu’tamir, Sulaymān al-A’mash and Ismā’īl bin Abī Khālid in regards to precision in Ḥadīth and soundness in it, you will find them distinct from others and not near them [in rank?]- there is no doubt regarding that among the people knowledgeable in Ḥadīth since the soundness of the memorization of Mansūr, al-A’mash, and Ismā’īl, and their precision in Ḥadīth was well-known among [the people knowledgeable in Ḥadīth] and they were not aware of examples of that from Atā’, Yazīd, and Layth.
Upon the same course as the above, when you weigh between the two levels like Ibn Awn and Ayyūb as-Sakhtiyānī with Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah and Ash’ath al-Humrānī- and all 4 are companions of al-Hasan and Ibn Sīrīn- there is disparity between the two groups. Between these two groups is a distance in terms of perfection of virtue and soundness of reporting even though Awf and Ash’ath are not repelled from [the status] of truthfulness and honesty according to Ahl ul-Ilm, rather the situation is as we described regarding their position.
We only mentioned these examples by way of naming them specifically so that their examples might be an indication for whoever is ignorant of the path to return to understanding of Ahl ul-Ilm regarding the ranking of its people. Thus there is no shortchanging the men of elevated rank any amount of what is due his level, and there is no elevation of those who are lower any amount of knowledge above his position- and each who possesses the right is given his right and is settled in his rank.
It has been mentioned on authority of Ā’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, that she said: ‘The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah upon him, ordered us to afford people their (rightful) positions according to what the Qur’ān states: {And above all who possess knowledge is another who is knowledgeable}[Yūsuf: 76] . Thus based on the example of what we mentioned [regarding the narrators of Hifẓ and Itqān, and narrations which lack excessive inconsistency or strong contradiction], we compiled what you asked for of [those kind] of reports on authority of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah upon him.
As for anything of that wherein the people were charged [with some criticism] by the people of Ḥadīth, or by the majority of [the people of Ḥadīth], then we did not preoccupy ourselves with bringing forward their narrations, such as Abd Allah ibn Miswar Abī Ja’far il-Madā’inī, Amr bin Khālid, Abd il-Quddūs ash-Shāmī, Muhammad ibn Sa’īd il-Maslūb, Ghiyāth ibn Ibrāhīm, Sulaymān bin Amr Abī Dāwud an-Nakha’ī, and those like them whereof they were accused of fabricating narrations and manufacturing reports; and like that are those whose narrations are dominated with Munkar, or mistakes- we withheld from their narrations as well.
An indication of Munkar in the narration of a Muhaddith is when his transmission differs with the transmission of a Muhaddith from the people of memorization and acceptance, or does not agree with it when the two are compared. When the majority of a person’s narrations are like that, he is abandoned [Mahjūr] in Ḥadīth, and not accepted in it, and his narrations are not acted upon. The following are those Muhaddithīn who are among this group: Abd Allah ibn Muharrar, Yahyā bin Abī Unaysah, Al-Jarrāh bin ul-Minhāl Abūl-Atūf, Abbād bin Kathīr, Husayn bin Abd Illah ibn Ḍumayrah, Umar bin Suhbān, and those of the same type in terms of transmission of Munkar Ḥadīth. We did not pause upon their narrations or preoccupy ourselves with them due to the ruling of Ahl ul-Ilm.
That which we are aware of from their school of thought in accepting what is singularly reported by a Muhaddith from the narrations is that (the Muhaddith) took part along with the trustworthy narrators from Ahl ul-Ilm wal-Hifẓ in transmitting some of what they transmitted, and [the Muhaddith] is predominantly in agreement with them; when one is found like that, then if he adds to [the transmission] anything not found with his companions, then his addition is accepted.
As for those who you see resorting to the likes of az-Zuhrī due to his greatness, and due to the great number of his companions being among the precise Huffāẓ, [resorting to] his Ḥadīth and the Ḥadīth of those like him, or to the likes of Hishām ibn Urwah, then their Ḥadīth are extensively shared among Ahl ul-Ilm. The greater majority of their companions related their Ḥadīth in agreement with one another [with few having contradictions]. Thus to transmit from [Urwah and az-Zuhrī], or one of them, from among the multitude of Ḥadīth, what is not known among any of their companions, and [the Rāwī] is not of those who share in the Sahīh narrations [found] among them, then it is not allowed to accept the narrations of this category of people, and Allah knows best.
We have explained from the school of Ḥadīth and its people some of what those who wish to traverse the path of [the Muhaddithīn] should aim for, and be guided towards. We will, if Allah wills, add to the explanation and clarification in another place in this book upon the mention of defective reports [Mu’allalah] when we come to it, in the places where explanation and clarification are appropriate, if Allah wills.
And what follows:
May Allah have mercy on you, if not for that which we saw of an evil act, largely from those who claim to be Muhaddithīn, in what they were supposed to adhere to when putting forward weak narrations and abominable transmissions and their neglect for the investigation of famous Sahīh narrations related by the trustworthy narrators, well-known for their truthfulness and honesty, after knowledge of them and affirmation with their tongues, that a great many of [weak and abominable narrations] which were cast towards heedless people are denounced and spoken of as not acceptable whereof the A’immah of the people of Ḥadīth criticized their transmissions- A’immah like Mālik ibn Anas, Shu’bat bin al-Hajjāj, Sufyān bin Uyaynah, Yahyā bin Sa’īd al-Qattān, Abd ir-Rahman ibn Mahdī, and other A’immah- then the establishment of what you asked for of distinction [between the types of Ḥadīth] and collection [of those which were Sahīh] would be easy for us. However on account of what we informed you of regarding the people’s circulation of abominable reports with weak, unknown chains, and their casting them towards the common people who are not aware of their defects, responding to what you asked became lighter upon our hearts.
Chapter 6: Unveiling Defects of the Transmitters of Ḥadīth and Relaters of Reports and the Statements of the A’immah Regarding That
Muslim said: Similar instances to what we mentioned from the words of Ahl ul-Ilm regarding those transmitters who are imputed in Ḥadīth, and reports about their defects, are great in number, it would lengthen this book to mention its investigation, and what we [already] mentioned should be sufficient for whoever reflects upon and understands the way of the people [Muhaddithīn] in terms of what they said and clarified of all of that.
Indeed [the Muhaddithīn] concerned themselves with the unveiling of the defects of transmitters of Ḥadīth and narrators of reports; they delivered verdicts in that at the time they were asked when there was a great danger involved considering that the reports are regarding affairs of the Dīn; whether [the transmissions] present a permission or proscription, a command or prohibition, encouragement or admonition.
If the transmitter for it is not a source of truthfulness or reliability, then those who know [his condition], who risk transmitting on his authority, and not declaring [his condition] to others whom are ignorant of his [state], are sinning through doing that, and deceiving the common Muslims, since he should not feel secure in that some of those who heard these reports will act upon them, or act upon some of them, and perhaps they are lies which have no basis, or a majority of them; this along with the fact that authentic reports from the trustworthy chains and the people who are satisfactory [to the majority of Ahl ul-Ilm] are in too great a number to compel relating from those who are not trustworthy and who are not satisfactory.
I do not think highly of those who would permit from the people what we described of these weak narrations and unknown chains, and who judge by these transmissions after knowing what is in them of those who are imputed and weak unless he, through his conveyance and judgment by them, desires to accumulate [status] through that among the commoners, or that it can be said, ‘How great is the number of Ḥadīth that so-and-so has gathered and compiled!’. Those who held this ideology regarding knowledge and traversed this path have no share in it and that they were designated as being ignorant is more deserving than for them to be attributed to knowledge.
‘Write from Baqiyyah what he transmits on authority of those who are well-known, and do not write from him what he transmits on authority of those who are not; do not write from Ismā’īl bin Ayyāsh what he transmits on authority of those who are well-known or otherwise ’.
‘What an excellent man is Baqiyyah, if it were not for the fact that he would provide a nickname for [those who were better-known by] the birth name, and he would provide the birth name for [those who were better-known by] a nickname. For a long time he would narrated to us on authority of Abī Sa’īd al-Wuhāthī, then when we investigated [we were surprised that] he was Abd ul-Quddūs ’.
‘I did not see Ibn al-Mubārak express so plainly the charge of ‘lying’ except towards Abd ul-Quddūs; for indeed I heard him saying to him ‘[You are] a liar’.’
‘I heard Abū Nu’aym and he mentioned al-Mu’allā bin Urfān, so [Abū Nu’aym] said, [al-Mu’allā] said: ‘Abū Wā’il narrated to us, he said ‘Ibn Mas’ūd attacked us on the day of Siffīn’. So Abū Nu’aym said: ‘Do you think he was raised after death? [Ibn Mas’ūd passed away in 32 or 33H, several years before the day in question]
‘We were near Ismā’īl bin Ulayyah, and a man narrated on authority of another man, so I said: ‘Indeed this is not reliable (Thabt)’. So the man said: ‘Are you backbiting him?’ Ismā’īl said: ‘He is not backbiting him; rather he is judging him unreliable’.
‘I asked Mālik bin Anas about Muhammad bin Abd ar-Rahman who transmits on authority of Sa’īd bin al-Musayyib, so he said: ‘He is not trustworthy ‘. I asked him about Sālih, a freed slave of at-Taw’amah, then he said: ‘He is not trustworthy’. I asked him about Abūl-Huwayrith , and he said: ‘He is not trustworthy’. I asked him about Shu’bah on whose authority Ibn Abī Dhi’b transmitted, and he said: ‘He is not trustworthy’. I asked him about Harām bin Uthmān , and he said ‘He is not trustworthy’. I asked Mālik about these five and he said: ‘They are not trustworthy in terms of their Ḥadīth’. I asked him about another man whose name I forget just now, and he said: ‘Did you see him in my book?’ I said: ‘No’. [Then] he said: ‘If he was trustworthy you would see him in my book’.
‘Yahyā bin Ma’īn narrated to me, Hajjāj narrated to us, Ibn Abī Dhi’b narrated to us on authority of Shurahbīl bin Sa’d , and he was imputed [with lying regarding Ḥadīth near the end of his life]’.
‘If I had to choose between entering Paradise and meeting Abd Allah bin Muharrar, I would have chosen to meet him, then enter Paradise. Then when I saw him, dung was more preferred to me than him’.
‘Do not take [Ḥadīth] from my brother ’.
‘Yahyā bin Abī Unaysah was a liar’.
‘Indeed Farqad is not a companion of Ḥadīth’.
‘More weak than Ya’qūb bin Atā ’?’ He said: ‘Yes’. Then he said: ‘I did not see anyone transmitting on authority of Muhammad bin Abd Allah bin Ubayd bin Umayr’.
‘His Ḥadīth are Rīh or ‘wind’ [i.e., not established and weak]. [Yahyā] weakened Mūsā bin Dihqān and Īsā bin Abī Īsā al-Madanī. [Muslim] said, ‘I heard al-Hasan bin Īsā saying ‘Ibn al-Mubārak said to me: ‘When you go to Jarīr then write down all of his knowledge except the Ḥadīth of 3 [people] - do not write the Ḥadīth of Ubaydah bin Mu’attib, as-Sarī bin Ismā’īl, or Muhammad bin Sālim’.’
Chapter 7: What is Declared Sound Regarding the Transmission of Some Transmitters On Authority of Others and Warning Against Those Who Make Mistakes in That
Some pretender to knowledge of Ḥadīth from the people of our time made a statement regarding authentication and weakening of chains; a statement that if we were to disregard relating it and disregard mentioning its evil, truly it would be a strong opinion and sound approach, since turning away from the renounced view and dropping any mention of its speaker are most appropriate for putting it to rest; and better suited so as to not draw the attention of the ignorant to it.
Other than for what we fear from the evil results and dangers of the ignorant in innovated matters and their hastening towards believing in the mistakes of those who err and the rejected statements according to the scholars, we think the unveiling of the evil of his statement and refutation of its speaker with the amount which is deserved from refutation is more beneficial upon the creation and more praiseworthy ultimately, if Allah wills.
The speaker who we introduced by way of speaking on the account of his opinion and the reports of the evil of his thinking, alleged that every chain for Ḥadīth which has in it ‘so-and-so narrated on authority of so-and-so’ [Mu’an’an], and he has knowledge that they were contemporaries, and the probability that the Ḥadīth which the narrator transmitted from whom he transmitted, had heard it from him, and spoke face to face with him; without our knowing [for certain] that the narrator heard from the one who transmitted to him, and without finding in any of the transmissions that they ever met and spoke face to face for the purpose of Ḥadīth- that the proof is not established according to him in any report which comes in this manner until he has knowledge of both transmitters meeting in their era one or more times and speaking face to face for the purpose of narration, or he wants a report in which their meeting is clarified, their having met once in their era, or more than that; then if he does not have knowledge of that and there does not come to him an authentic transmission reporting that this transmitter [who relates] on authority of his companion met him once AND heard from him something- [there] will be no [proof] of his relating the report from whom he transmitted on authority of.
The matter just as we described is a proof [transmitters being contemporaries and the possibility of having met existing] and the report according to him is unresolved until there arrives [the transmitters] hearing from him something from Ḥadīth, a little or a lot, in a transmission [clarifying the ‘hearing’] equal to what he narrated [with Mu’an’an].
Chapter 8: The Soundness of Relying on Ḥadīth Related with the Term Meaning ‘On Authority of’
This statement, may Allah have mercy on you, of accusation regarding the [Mu’an’an] chains is an invented one, produced without precedent, and there is no one who supports him from Ahl ul-Ilm in that. The widespread opinion, which is agreed upon between Ahl ul-Ilm, with reports and transmissions early and recent, is that each trustworthy narrator who transmits a Ḥadīth from his equal, with the feasible probability for [the transmitter] to meet [who he transmits from] and hear from him due to their being together in the same era, even if there never came a report that they met or spoke face to face, then the transmission is affirmed, and [using it as a] proof is appropriate, unless there is clear evidence that this transmitter did not meet who he transmits from or that he did not hear anything from him.
Then as for when the matter is ambiguous regarding the possibility which we explained previously, then the transmission is always [accepted ]as coming by way of ‘hearing’ until there is evidence [otherwise] which we pointed out. Thus it is said to the inventor of this opinion whose speaker is as we have described, or to his defender- you have provided in the sum total of your statement that the report of the single trustworthy narrator on authority of the single trustworthy narrator is a proof which is required to act upon, then you introduced into it the condition afterwards, and you said ‘until we know that [the transmitter] had met once or more and heard something from [the one he transmits from]’. So have you found this condition which you stipulated from anyone [of Ahl ul-Ilm] who also required it? And if not then bring me evidence of what you allege. Thus if he claims there is a statement from one of the scholars of the Salaf for what he alleged in introducing the condition in affirming reports, [then] confirm it; [however] neither he, nor others, will ever find a way to produce it, even though he claims about what he alleges there is evidence to rely on. It is said ‘What is that evidence?’
Thus if he said: ‘I said it since I found transmitters of reports, early and recent, transmitting Ḥadīth from each other, and [the transmitter] did not ever see or hear anything from [from the one he transmits from]. Thus when I saw them permitting the transmission of Ḥadīth between them like this, Irsāl, without hearing [between transmitters], while the Mursal from the transmissions, in the foundation of our view and that of Ahl ul-Ilm in reports, is that it is not a proof; on account of what I described from the weakness, I rely on researching the hearing of the transmitter in each report on authority of [who he transmits from]. Thus when I unexpectedly come upon his hearing from [the one he transmits from] due to the low amount of a thing [i.e. transmissions on his authority], all of what he transmits on his authority becomes fixed to me thereafter. And if knowledge of [his actually hearing from whom he transmits from] is too distant from me, I withhold from the report and according to me it does not have a position of proof due to the possibility of Irsāl in it.’
Thus it is said to him: Then if the reason for your weakening the [Mu’an’an] report and your abandoning relying on it is due to the possibility of Irsāl in it, it obligates you to not affirm a chain of Mu’an’an until you see it has hearing [Simā’] from its first [transmitter] to its last.
And according to us it is possible that the Ḥadīth [you described] which has come to us on authority of Hishām bin Urwah, on authority of his father, on authority of Ā’ishah- we know with certainty that Hishām heard from his father and that his father heard from Ā’ishah, just as we know that Ā’ishah heard from the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him- it is possible that when Hishām does not say in the transmission that he transmits on authority of his father the words ‘I heard’ or ‘He informed me’, that there could be between him and his father another person who informed [Hishām] of it on authority of his father in this transmission, and he did not hear it from his father when he preferred transmitting it Mursal, and it is not attributed to who he really heard it from.
Just as that is possible from Hishām, on authority of his father, then it is also possible for his father on authority of Ā’ishah, and like that all chains for Ḥadīth in which the ‘hearing’ [of each transmitter] from the other is not mentioned. And if it was known in some transmissions that every single one of them did hear from his companion a great deal, then it is still possible for each one of them to drop in some of the transmissions, such that he hears from someone else some of his Ḥadīth, then expedites on authority [of his most famous companion] occasionally, while not designating who he [actually] heard from. And at times he is afraid and designates who he [actually] related the Ḥadīth from and abandons Irsāl. What we mention from this is found in Ḥadīth, from the actions of trustworthy Muhaddithīn and A’immah of Ahl ul-Ilm; and we will mention several of their transmissions upon the pathway which we mentioned demonstrating through them the great amount of [the above], if Allah, exalted is He, wills. Thus from that [are the following]:
That Ayyūb as-Sakhtiyānī, Ibn al-Mubārak, Wakī’, Ibn Numayr, and a group of others transmitted on authority of Hishām bin Urwah, on authority of his father, on authority of Ā’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, she said: ‘I applied scent to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him, at the time of entering and leaving Ihrām, with the most pleasant [scent] I found’.
Thus Layth bin Sa’d, Dāwud al-Attār, Humayd bin al-Aswad, Wuhayb bin Khālid, and Abū Usāmah transmitted this transmission on authority of none other than Hishām, he said, Uthmān bin Urwah informed me, on authority of Urwah, on authority of Ā’ishah, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him; and Hishām transmitted, on authority of his father, on authority of Ā’ishah, she said: ‘The Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, when he was in ‘Itikaf lowered his head towards me, then I combed [his hair] and I was menstruating’. Then Mālik bin Anas transmitted the exact narration, on authority of az-Zuhrī, on authority of Urwah, on authority of Amrah , on authority of Ā’ishah, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him.
Az-Zuhrī and Sālih bin Abī Hassān transmitted on authority of Abī Salamah, on authority of Ā’ishah: ‘The Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, would kiss while fasting’.
Thus Yahyā bin Abī Kathīr said about this report regarding ‘kissing’, Abū Salamah bin Abd ar-Rahman informed me that Umar bin Abd al-Azīz informed him that Urwah informed him that Ā’ishah informed him that: ‘The Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, would kiss her while fasting’.
Ibn Uyaynah and others transmitted on authority of Amr bin Dīnār, on authority of Jābir, he said ‘The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him, [allowed us] to eat horse meat and prohibited us from donkey meat’. And Hammād bin Zayd transmitted it, on authority of Amr, on authority of Muhammad bin Alī, on authority of Jābir, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him. And this manner of transmitting narrations is abundant, its enumeration being much, and what we mentioned is sufficient for those who possess understanding. Thus when the reason [for weakening these types of transmissions]- according to the one whose opinion we described before in terms of the invalidation of Ḥadīth and weakening them when it is not known that the transmitter heard anything through the one he transmits from- is that Irsāl is possible in them, his opinion leads to his being obligated to abandon relying on transmissions of those who are known to have heard through who they transmit from unless there is mention of ‘hearing’ in the report itself, due to what we clarified before of the A’immah who related reports that at times they would expedite the Ḥadīth as Irsāl, and not mention who they heard it from, and at times they would be so inclined, so they would provide the chain for the report in the form that they heard it- they would report [a narration] through ‘descent’ [from a peer or someone below them in age or status] if it was descended and with ‘elevation’ [with less narrators between them and the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him] if it was elevated, just as we explained about them. We are not aware of anyone from the A’immah of the Salaf who when he sought to act upon reports and investigate the soundness or weakness of the chains of transmission like [those of] Ayyūb as-Sakhtiyānī, Ibn Awn, Mālik bin Anas, Shu’bah bin al-Hajjāj, Yahyā bin Sa’īd al-Qattān, Abd ar-Rahman bin Mahdī and those after them from the people of Ḥadīth, he examined the situation regarding [the manner of] ‘hearing’ in the chains, like what is claimed in the opinion of the one we described previously.
Those who investigated among [the scholars of Ḥadīth] would only investigate the ‘hearing’ of the transmitters of Ḥadīth they transmitted from when the transmitter was among those who were known for Tadlīs in Ḥadīth and famous for it. Thus when they investigated [a transmitter’s manner of] ‘hearing’ in his transmissions and they would research that about him in order to distance themselves from the defect of Tadlīs. Thus to research that about the non-Mudallis, from the perspective of the one who alleged what he did in the opinion we related, then we have not heard of that from anyone we designated and do not designate from the A’immah.
Thus from that is Abd Allah bin Yazīd al-Ansārī , who saw the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him; he transmitted a Ḥadīth on authority of Hudhayfah and Abī Mas’ūd al-Ansārī attributing it to the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, and there is no mention of ‘hearing’ in his transmission from either of them . Also, we have not preserved in any of the transmissions that Abd Allah bin Yazīd ever met Hudhayfah or Abū Mas’ūd face to face for Ḥadīth. We have not found mention in an actual transmission his seeing either of them and we have not heard from any of Ahl ul-Ilm who have passed or who we have met who charged with weakness these two reports who Abd Allah bin Yazīd transmitted on authority of Hudhayfah and Abū Mas’ūd. Rather according to those we met from Ahl ul-Ilm in Ḥadīth those two [reports] and whatever is similar to them are among the authentic and strong chains; they held the view of acting by what was related by them, and relied upon what came from the Sunan and Āthār [in that manner]. And it is weak and abandoned in the allegation of the one whose view we related before, until ‘hearing’ of the transmitter is obtained from whoever transmits [them]. And even if we took to enumerating the authentic reports according to Ahl ul-Ilm whereof they are weak in the allegation of this speaker and we counted them, truly we would not be able to fully examine its mention and enumerate all of them; rather we prefer to place several as a symbol for what we remain silent on.
Abū Uthmān an-Nahdī and Abū Rāfi’ as-Sā’igh both were from among those who witnessed the age of Jahiliyyah [the time before Islam in the Arabian Peninsula] and were among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him, who witnessed the battle of Badr, and so on and so forth. They both related reports on authority of [the Companions] until they [related Ḥadīth from younger Companions] the likes of Abū Hurayrah and Ibn Umar. Each of these two transmitted a single Ḥadīth on authority of Ubayy bin K’ab, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, and we did not hear in an actual transmission that they had seen Ubayy with their own eyes, or heard anything from him.
Abū Amr ash-Shaybānī witnessed al-Jahiliyyah and was an adult during the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, and Abū Ma’mar Abd Allah bin Sakhbarah each transmitted two reports on authority of Abū Mas’ūd al-Ansārī, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him.
Ubayd bin Umayr transmitted a Ḥadīth on authority of Umm Salamah, wife of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, and Ubayd bin Umayr was born in the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him.
Qays bin Abī Hāzim transmitted three reports on authority of Abū Mas’ūd al-Ansārī, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him and he witnessed the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him.
Abd ar-Rahman bin Abī Laylā transmitted a Ḥadīth on authority of Anas bin Mālik, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, and he heard from Umar bin al-Khattāb and accompanied Alī.
Rib’ī bin Hirāsh transmitted two Ḥadīth on authority of Imrān bin Husayn, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him; and a Ḥadīth on authority of Abū Bakrah, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him. Rib’ī heard from Alī bin Abī Tālib and transmitted on his authority.
Nāfi’ bin Jubayr bin Mut’im transmitted a Ḥadīth on authority of Abī Shurayh al-Khuzā’ī, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him.
An-Nu’mān bin Abī Ayyāsh transmitted three Ahādīth on authority of Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him.
Atā’ bin Yazīd al-Laythī transmitted a Ḥadīth on authority of Tamīm ad-Dārī, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him.
Sulaymān bin Yasār transmitted a Ḥadīth on authority of Rāfi’ bin Khadīj, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him.
Humayd bin Abd ar-Rahman al-Himyarī transmitted narrations on authority of Abū Hurayrah, on authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him. Thus all of these Tabi’īn we named, whose transmissions are on authority of Companions, are not recorded in separate transmissions to have heard directly from them, to our knowledge, and are not recorded to have met them in the course of the actual report. They are sound chains of transmission according to those who possess knowledge of reports and transmissions; we do not know of them ever weakening anything of them or asking about whether they heard from each other, since the ‘hearing’ of each one of them from his companion is possible, without anyone rejecting [that], due to them all being together in the same time period.
This opinion that the speaker invented, which we related, regarding weakening the Ḥadīth, for the reason which he described, is too inferior to be relied upon or [too inferior] for its mention to be stirred up since it was an invented opinion and a backward discussion which no one from Ahl ul-Ilm stated before and those who came after them denounced it. Thus there is no need to for us to refute it with more than what we have already explained since the standing of the speech and its speaker is that which we described, and Allah is the one with whom aid is sought in repelling what differs from the school of the scholars and in Him alone complete trust is placed.