Chapter: That Which is Related to the Statements ‘The Chain of Narration is from the Religion’; ‘Transmissions are not Taken Except from Trustworthy Narrators’; and ‘Criticism of the Narrators With What is Permissible Regarding Them, Even Obligatory and That It is not the Prohibited Kind of Backbiting, Rather it is the Defense of the Noble Sharī’ah’

Bishr bin al-Hakam narrated to me, he said, I heard Yahyā bin Sa’īd al-Qattān weaken Hakīm bin Jubayr and Abd al-A’lā; and he weakened Yahyā Mūsā bin Dīnār [there is no ‘bin’ between ‘Yahyā’ and ‘Mūsā’]; [Yahyā] said:
‘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’.’

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.

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].