‘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 ’.  

قَالَ لِي أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ الْفَزَارِيُّ اكْتُبْ عَنْ بَقِيَّةَ مَا رَوَى عَنِ الْمَعْرُوفِينَ وَلاَ تَكْتُبْ عَنْهُ مَا رَوَى عَنْ غَيْرِ الْمَعْرُوفِينَ وَلاَ تَكْتُبْ عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ عَيَّاشٍ مَا رَوَى عَنِ الْمَعْرُوفِينَ وَلاَ عَنْ غَيْرِهِمْ  

‘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 ’.  

سَمِعْتُ بَعْضَ أَصْحَابِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ قَالَ ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ نِعْمَ الرَّجُلُ بَقِيَّةُ لَوْلاَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَكْنِي الأَسَامِيَ وَيُسَمِّي الْكُنَى كَانَ دَهْرًا يُحَدِّثُنَا عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْوُحَاظِيِّ فَنَظَرْنَا فَإِذَا هُوَ عَبْدُ الْقُدُّوسِ  

‘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’.’  

مَا رَأَيْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ يُفْصِحُ بِقَوْلِهِ كَذَّابٌ إِلاَّ لِعَبْدِ الْقُدُّوسِ فَإِنِّي سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ لَهُ كَذَّابٌ  

‘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]  

وَذَكَرَ الْمُعَلَّى بْنَ عُرْفَانَ فَقَالَ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو وَائِلٍ قَالَ خَرَجَ عَلَيْنَا ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ بِصِفِّينَ فَقَالَ أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ أَتُرَاهُ بُعِثَ بَعْدَ الْمَوْتِ  

‘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’.  

كُنَّا عِنْدَ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ابْنِ عُلَيَّةَ فَحَدَّثَ رَجُلٌ عَنْ رَجُلٍ فَقُلْتُ إِنَّ هَذَا لَيْسَ بِثَبْتٍ قَالَ فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ اغْتَبْتَهُ قَالَ إِسْمَاعِيلُ مَا اغْتَابَهُ وَلَكِنَّهُ حَكَمَ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِثَبْتٍ  

‘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’.  

لَيْسُوا بِثِقَةٍ فِي حَدِيثِهِمْ وَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ آخَرَ نَسِيتُ اسْمَهُ فَقَالَ هَلْ رَأَيْتَهُ فِي كُتُبِي قُلْتُ لاَ قَالَ لَوْ كَانَ ثِقَةً لَرَأَيْتَهُ فِي كُتُبِي  

‘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]’.  

عَنْ شُرَحْبِيلَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ وَكَانَ مُتَّهَمًا  

‘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’.  

أَنْ أَلْقَاهُ ثُمَّ أَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَلَمَّا رَأَيْتُهُ كَانَتْ بَعْرَةٌ أَحَبَّ إِلَىَّ مِنْهُ  

‘Do not take [Ḥadīth] from my brother ’.  

لاَ تَأْخُذُوا عَنْ أَخِي  

‘Yahyā bin Abī Unaysah was a liar’.  

كَانَ يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ كَذَّابًا  

‘Indeed Farqad is not a companion of Ḥadīth’.  

ذُكِرَ فَرْقَدٌ عِنْدَ أَيُّوبَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ فَرْقَدًا لَيْسَ صَاحِبَ حَدِيثٍ  

‘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’.  

ذُكِرَ عِنْدَهُ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ اللَّيْثِيُّ فَضَعَّفَهُ جِدًّا فَقِيلَ لِيَحْيَى أَضْعَفُ مِنْ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ عَطَاءٍ قَالَ نَعَمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ مَا كُنْتُ أُرَى أَنَّ أَحَدًا يَرْوِي عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ  

‘His Ḥadīth are rīḥ 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’.’  

ضَعَّفَ حَكِيمَ بْنَ جُبَيْرٍ وَعَبْدَ الأَعْلَى وَضَعَّفَ يَحْيَى مُوسَى بْنَ دِينَارٍ قَالَ حَدِيثُهُ رِيحٌ وَضَعَّفَ مُوسَى بْنَ دِهْقَانَ وَعِيسَى بْنَ أَبِي عِيسَى الْمَدَنِيَّ

قَالَ وَسَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عِيسَى يَقُولُ قَالَ لِيَ ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ إِذَا قَدِمْتَ عَلَى جَرِيرٍ فَاكْتُبْ عِلْمَهُ كُلَّهُ إِلاَّ حَدِيثَ ثَلاَثَةٍ لاَ تَكْتُبْ حَدِيثَ عُبَيْدَةَ بْنِ مُعَتِّبٍ وَالسَّرِيِّ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ  

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.  

وأشْباهُ ما ذَكَرْنا مِن كَلامِ أهْلِ العِلْمِ فِي مُتَّهَمِي رُواةِ الحَدِيثِ وإخْبارِهِمْ عَنْ مَعايِبِهِمْ كَثِيرٌ يَطُولُ الكِتابُ بِذِكْرِهِ عَلى اسْتِقْصائِهِ وفِيما ذَكَرْنا كِفايَةٌ لِمَن تَفَهَّمَ وعَقَلَ مَذْهَبَ القَوْمِ فِيما قالُوا مِن ذَلِكَ وبَيَّنُوا۔

وإنَّما ألْزَمُوا أنْفُسَهُمُ الكَشْفَ عَنْ مَعايِبِ رُواةِ الحَدِيثِ وناقِلِي الأخْبارِ وأفْتَوْا بِذَلِكَ حِينَ سُئِلُوا لِما فِيهِ مِن عَظِيمِ الخَطَرِ إذِ الأخْبارُ فِي أمْرِ الدِّينِ إنَّما تَأْتِي بِتَحْلِيلٍ أوْ تَحْرِيمٍ أوْ أمْرٍ أوْ نَهْيٍ أوْ تَرْغِيبٍ أوْ تَرْهِيبٍ۔

فَإذا كانَ الرّاوِي لَها لَيْسَ بِمَعْدِنٍ لِلصِّدْقِ والأمانَةِ ثُمَّ أقْدَمَ عَلى الرِّوايَةِ عَنْهُ مَن قَدْ عَرَفَهُ ولَمْ يُبَيِّنْ ما فِيهِ لِغَيْرِهِ مِمَّنْ جَهِلَ مَعْرِفَتَهُ كانَ آثِمًا بِفِعْلِهِ ذَلِكَ غاشًّا لِعَوامِّ المُسْلِمِينَ إذْ لا يُؤْمَنُ عَلى بَعْضِ مَن سَمِعَ تِلْكَ الأخْبارَ أنْ يَسْتَعْمِلَها أوْ يَسْتَعْمِلَ بَعْضَها ولَعَلَّها أوْ أكْثَرَها أكاذِيبُ لا أصْلَ لَها مَعَ أنَّ الأخْبارَ الصِّحاحَ مِن رِوايَةِ الثِّقاتِ وأهْلِ القَناعَةِ أكْثَرُ مِن أنْ يُضْطَرَّ إلى نَقْلِ مَن لَيْسَ بِثِقَةٍ ولا مَقْنَعٍ۔

ولا أحْسِبُ كَثِيرًا مِمَّنْ يُعَرِّجُ مِنَ النّاسِ عَلى ما وصَفْنا مِن هَذِهِ الأحادِيثِ الضِّعافِ والأسانِيدِ المَجْهُولَةِ ويَعْتَدُّ بِرِوايَتِها بَعْدَ مَعْرِفَتِهِ بِما فِيها مِنَ التَّوَهُّنِ والضَّعْفِ إلّا أنَّ الَّذِي يَحْمِلُهُ عَلى رِوايَتِها والِاعْتِدادِ بِها إرادَةُ التَّكَثُّرِ بِذَلِكَ عِنْدَ العَوامِّ ولِأنْ يُقالَ ما أكْثَرَ ما جَمَعَ فُلانٌ مِنَ الحَدِيثِ وألَّفَ مِنَ العَدَدِ ومَن ذَهَبَ فِي العِلْمِ هَذا المَذْهَبَ وسَلَكَ هَذا الطَّرِيقَ فَلا نَصِيبَ لَهُ فِيهِ وكانَ بِأنْ يُسَمّى جاهِلًا أوْلى مِن أنْ يُنْسَبَ إلى عِلْمٍ