Introduction

المقدمة

Abd Allah bin Abd ar-Rahman ad-Dārimī narrated to me, he said:‘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]

Amr bin Alī and Hasan al-Hulwānī narrated to me, both of them on authority of Affān bin Muslim, he said:‘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’.

Abū Ja’far ad-Dārimī narrated to us, Bishr bin Umar narrated to us, he said:‘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’.

Al-Faḍl bin Sahl narrated to me, he said:‘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]’.

Muhammad bin Abd Allah bin Quhzādh narrated to me, he said, I heard Abū Ishāq at-Tālqānī saying, I heard Ibn al-Mubārak saying:‘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’.

Al-Faḍl bin Sahl narrated to me, Walīd bin Sālih narrated to us, he said, Ubayd Allah bin Amr said, Zayd- meaning Ibn Abī Unaysah – said:‘Do not take [Ḥadīth] from my brother ’.

Ahmad bin Ibrāhīm ad-Dawraqī narrated to me, he said, Abd us-Salām al-Wābisī narrated to me, he said, Abd Allah bin Ja’far ar-Raqqī narrated to me, on authority of Ubayd Allah bin Amr, he said:‘Yahyā bin Abī Unaysah was a liar’.

Ahmad bin Ibrāhīm narrated to me, he said, Sulaymān bin Harb narrated to me, on authority of Hammād bin Zayd, he said, Farqad was mentioned near Ayyūb, so he said:‘Indeed Farqad is not a companion of Ḥadīth’.

Abd ur-Rahman bin Bishr al-Abdī narrated to me, he said, I heard Muhammad bin Abd Allah bin Ubayd bin Umayr al-Laythī was mentioned near Yahyā bin Sa’īd al-Qattān, so he weakened him severely. Then it was said to Yahyā:‘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’.

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’.’ Imam 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.