It is a Famous and well known issue that the narrations of a Mudallis narrator (meaning one who is proven to be a Mudallis), are not taken as evidence, meaning they are Da’eef.
Here we present forty (40) references from the Muhadditheen, Scholars of Hadeeth, and Aimmah with proofs, on this issue:
1.Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Idrees ash-Shafi’ee [rahimahullah] (d. 204 H) said:
“Thus we said: We do not accept any hadeeth from any Mudallis, until he says: ‘Haddathani’ or ‘Sami’tu’ (meaning until when he narrates a hadeeth in which he affirms of hearing that hadeeth directly from his Shaikh).”
[Kitaab ar-Risalah: Pg 53, bi tahqeeq Ahmed Shaakir: 1035]
Kitaab ar-Risalah is one of the ancient and the greatest books of Usool Fiqh, and Usool Hadeeth, and in fact Usool Deen. Many scholars have written explanations (Shurooh) of this book.
2.Imam Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi [rahimahullah] (d. 198 H) used to like Kitaab ar-Risalah. See: At-Taywariyat (Vol 2 Pg 761 H. 681, Chain Saheeh)
This proves that even according to Imam Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi, the narrations of a Mudallis narrated with “AN” are not acceptable.
3.Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal [rahimahullah] (d. 241 H) was pleased with Kitaab ar-Risalah. See: Kitaab al-Jarah wat Ta’deel [204/7, Chain Saheeh], and he used to say that this is one of his best books. [Taareekh Dimash by Ibn Asaakir: 291/54, Chain Saheeh]
4.Imam Ishaaq bin Rahwayh [rahimahullah] (d. 238) was also in consent with Kitaab ar-Risalah. [See: Imam Shafi’ee aur Mas’la Tadlees]
5.Imam Ismaa’eel bin Yahya Al-Muzni [rahimahullah] (d. 264 H) was also agreed with Kitaab ar-Risalah. [Muqaddimat ar-Risalah Pg 73 Riwayat Ibn al-Akfaani: 54, Chain Hasan]
6.The famous Muhaddith, Abu Bakr Al-Baihaqi [rahimahullah] (d. 458 H) narrated the above mentioned saying of Imam Shafi’ee, and agreed with it by keeping silence. See: Ma’rifat as-Sunan wal Athaar (76/1) and Al-Nakat by Al-Zarkashi (Pg 191).
7.The author of Saheeh Muslim, Imam Muslim [rahimahullah] (d. 261 H) said:
“Whoever found the samaa’ of the narrators of hadeeth, so he found it when the narrator was known for Tadlees, and when he was famous with it, then we look for his samaa in the narration, and search for it, so that the weakness of Tadlees is elevated from the narrators.” [Muqaddimah Saheeh Muslim: Pg 22]
While explaining this saying, Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali said:
“And it is possible that it denotes the abundance of tadlees, and it is (also) possible that it denotes (just) the proof of Tadlees, as the saying of Ash-Shafi’ee.” [Sharh Illal al-Tirmidhi: Vol 1 Pg 354]
We say that it is meant for both of them, meaning if a narrator is Katheer ut-Tadlees (abundant in Tadlees), his Mu’an’an (narrated with AN) narrations are Da’eef, and if the tadlees is proven from the narrator (even once), even then his Mu’an‘an (narrated with An) narrations will be Da’eef (with their conditions).
8.Khateeb Baghdaadi [rahimahullah] (d. 463 H) said:
“And others said: The report of a mudallis is not acceptable, until he narrates without the doubtful words, with affirmation of hearing. If he does that, then his narration is acceptable, and this is authentic according to us.”
[Al-Kifayah fi Ilm ar-Riwayah Pg 361]
Al-Kifayah is one of the famous and authentic books of Usool ul-Hadeeth. Moreover this sayin is not against any strong evidence.
9.Haafidh Ibn Hibban al-Basti [rahimahullah] (d. 354 H) said:
“Thus until when a Mudallis, though Siqah, does not say Haddathani, or Sami’tu, it is not permissible to take evidence from his narration, and this is the original (basic principle) of Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Idrees ash-Shafi’ee [rahimahullah], and is also the principle of our teachers, who have followed him in this issue.”
[Kitaab al-Majroheen: Vol 1 Pg 92]
Haafidh Ibn Hibbaan further said:
“Thus it is not permissible to take evidence from the hadeeth of a Mudallis in which he does not affirm his hearing from his teacher, because it is known that may be he would have heard from a Da’eef person, after knowing whom the narration becomes Baatil. Thus, until when a Mudallis, though siqah, does not say Haddathani or Sami’tu in his narration then it will not be taken as evidence.”
[Kitaab ath-Thiqaat Vol 1 Pg 12]
10.Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah Al-Shahar Zauri Ash-Shafi’ee [rahimahullah] (d. 643) said:
“The ruling is that the only narration of a Mudallis that will be accepted is the one in which he clarifies who he heard it from, and Imam Shafi’ee put this condition upon every that individual who commits Tadlees once, Wallahu a’lam.”
[Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah: Pg 99]
Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah or Uloom Hadeeth is the famous and well known book of the principles of hadeeth, and it has gained the wide acceptance of people. For example see: Irshaad Taalib al-Haqaaiq by Al-Nawawi (108/1), Al-Minhal ar-Raawi by Ibn Jami’ah (Pg 26), Ikhtisaar Uloom ul-Hadeeth by Ibn Katheer (95, 96/1), Al-Taqiyeed wal Aidaah (Pg 11), Nazhat an-Nadhar by Ibn Hajar (Pg 5-6), Al-Muntakhab fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth by Ibn al-Tarkamani (Pg 61), Al-Baher allazi Zakhar by As-Suyooti (235/1), and others.
11.Allamah Yahya bin Sharf an-Nawawi [rahimahullah] (d. 677 H) said:
“Thus when he (Mudallis) narrates with the words in which there is doubt, and it has no clarification of having heard that hadeeth, then it is Mursal… and this ruling is upon those who commits tadlees (even) once.”
[Taqreeb an-Nawawi fi Usool al-Hadeeth Pg 9, Tadreeb ar-Raawi by As-Suyooti: 229, 230/1]
Imam Nawawi said regarding Mursal, that:
“Then the Mursal is a Da’eef hadeeth, according to the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen…”
[Al-Taqreeb by An-Nawawi Pg 7]
12.Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr [rahimahullah] (d. 463H) said:
“And similarly, the person who gets known with the Tadlees in which there is a consensus (that it is tadlees), and he is one of those mild people who take narrations from everyone; then whatever narration he narrates, will not be taken as evidence, except that he says, Akhbarna (reported to us) or Sami’tu (I heard).”
[Al-Tamheed lima fi al-Muwatta min al-Ma’ani wal Asaaneed: 171/1]
From this we get to know that the narration of a Mudallis narrating from a Da’eef narrator, in which he has not clarified of hearing from his Shaikh (meaning he narrates with AN), is not taken as evidence according to Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr, meaning it is Da’eef.
According to our knowledge, there is no one from the established Mudalliseen, who does not narrate from Da’eef narrators.
Note: The claim of Haafidh Ibn Hibbaan [rahimahullah] and others, that Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah [rahimahullah] only used to do tadlees from Siqah narrators, is wrong due to several reasons. For example:
*This is not a universal principle, sometimes Sufyaan bin Uyainah [rahimahullah] also used to do tadlees from non-Siqah narrators.
*The Siqah narrators from whom Sufyaan bin Uyainah used to do Tadlees, many among them were mudalliseen themselves; and there is no proof of Sufyaan bin Uyainah doing tadlees from a “Siqah Non-Mudallis” narrator, therefore there is a possibility of tadlees upon tadlees.
*Sufyaan bin Uyainah also used to narrate ahadeeth from Da’eef narrators, for example: Among his teachers, Ali bin Zayd bin Jad’aan (Da’eef narrator) is also included.
Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr [rahimahullah] further said:
“Except that (if) a narrator is known for tadlees, then his hadeeth is not acceptable, until he says ‘Haddathana’ (Narrated to us), or Sami’tu (I heard), I do not know any difference of opnion regarding this issue.”
Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr [rahimahullah] has put the following three conditions for the acceptance of Mu’an’an (narrated with ‘AN’) narration.
*All the narrators should be Aadil, meaning Siqah (reliable) and Dhaabit
*The meeting of every narrator should be proven from his teacher
*All the narrators should be free from Tadlees [Al-Tamheed: 12/1]
The other saying of Haafidh Ibn Abdu Barr, opposite to it is, Marjooh (inferior).
13.Abu Bakr as-Seerfi [rahimahullah] (D. 330H) said in the Explanation of Kitaab ar-Risaalah by Ash-Shafi’ee called, Kitaab ad-Dalaail wal A’laam:
“Every such person whose tadlees is proven from non-Siqah (unreliable) narrators, then his narration is not accepted, until he says ‘Haddathani’ (Narrated to us) or ‘Sami’tu’ (I heard).”
[Al-Nakat Ala Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah by Al-Zarkashi: Pg 184]
14.Haafidh Dhahabi said about the Mu’an’an (narrated with ‘AN’) narrations:
“If the meeting is confirmed, then in this situation the condition is that the narrator is not Mudallis from his teacher, thus if he is not then we will take it (narration narraed with ‘AN’) as connected, thus if he is a Mudallis then it is obvious that it is not taken as connected, then if he is such a Mudallis who only used to commit tadlees from the Siqah teachers, then there is nothing wrong in it, and if he used to do tadlees from Da’eef narrators then it (the narration narrated with ‘AN’) is Mardood (rejected).”
[Al-Mawqazah by Adh-Dhahabi with Kifayah Al-Hifdhah by Saleem bin Eed al-Halaai Pg 199]
Here, we want to say just as a benefit that, the example of doing tadlees from siqah narrators is only Sufyaan bin Uyainah (in the world of Tadlees), and his mu’an’an (narrated with AN) narration is also Da’eef due to two reasons, mentioned above.
It is very clear from the above saying of Haafidh Dhahabi that, according to him, the mu’an’an (narrated with AN) narrations of all the mudalliseen such as: Sufyaan ath-Thawri, Sulemaan al-A’mash and others are Da’eef and Mardood (with their conditions).
15.Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalaani [rahimahullah] said:
“And the ruling on one whose tadlees gets established, even though he may be Aadil, is that only those of his narrations will be acceptable in which he clarifies of hearing it [from his Shaikh].”
[Nazhat un-Nazar Sharh Nukhbat ul-Fikar: Pg 66, and with the Sharh of Mullah Ali Qari: Pg 419]
16.Imam Bukhari [rahimahullah] said while commenting on a hadeeth:
“And Abu Qatadah did not mention the verification of hearing it from Abu Nadrah.”
[Juz al-Qira’ah: 104]
This indicates that according to Imam Bukhari, a Mudallis not clarifying his hearing is contrary to the authentication of a hadeeth.
17.Imam Shu’bah [rahimahullah] (d. 160 H) said about his Mudallis teacher, Abu Qatadah [rahimahullah] that:
“I used to observe the lips of Abu Qatadah, when he used to say: ‘so-and-so narrated to us’ (Haddathana), I would memorize it, and when he used to say: ‘narrated so-and-so’ (AN), I would leave that hadeeth”
[Preface of Jarah wat Ta’deel: Pg 169, Chain Saheeh]
This proves that even Imam Shu’bah did not use to consider the Mu’an’an (narrated with AN) hadeeth of a Mudallis as evidence. Moreover see: Ilmi Maqalaat of Shaikh Zubair (Vol 1 Pg 261, 262).
18.Imam Ibn Khuzaymah [rahimahullah] (d. 311H) while criticizing a hadeeth, classed it to be defective, and said:
“A’mash is Mudallis, (and) he did not mention of hearing it from Habeeb bin Abi Thaabit.”
[Kitaab at-Tawheed: Pg 38, Ilmi Maqalaat Vol 3 Pg 220]
This proves that Imam Ibn Khuzaymah used to consider the narration of a Mudallis narrated with ‘AN’ to be Da’eef.
19.Haafidh Ibn al-Mulqan [rahimahullah] (d. 804 H) also narrated the ruling of Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah and did not oppose it. See: Al-Maqna’ fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth (158/1).
20.Haafidh Ibn Katheer [rahimahullah] (d. 774 H) narrated the saying of Imam Shafi’ee regarding Tadlees, and did not oppose it. See: Ikhtisaar Uloom ul-Hadeeth (174/1)
21.Haafidh Al-Iraaqi [rahimahullah] (d. 806 H) narrated the saying of Ibn as-Salaah and did not oppose it. [See: Al-Taqiyeed wal Aidhaah Pg 99]
And Iraaqi said:
“And they (Muhadditheen) have declared the narration narrated with AN to be connected, which is free from the Tadlees of narrator, and (in which) the meeting (of teacher and student) is proven”
[Al-Fiyah Al-Iraaqi, Prose 136, Fathul Mugheeth Sharh Alfiya al-Hadeeth 163/1]
Iraaqi further said (the meaning of which is that):
“The Jumhoor have classed the narrations of Siqah Mudallis narrators to be Saheeh, in which they affirm of it being connected, meaning clarify their hearing, and both (Khateeb and Ibn as-Salaah) have declared this saying to be authentic.”
[Alfiyah al-Iraaqi with Fath ul-Mugeeth 179/1]
22.Shareef Jarjaani (Ali bin Muhammad bin Ali al-Hussaini, d. 816H) said about the Mudallis narrator that:
“And the Best explanation is that: Thus if he narrates the narration with words which do not confirm his hearing, and are doubtful, then its ruling is the ruling of Mursal and its types.”
[Risalah fi Usool ul-Hadeeth Pg 91, Al-Dibaaj al-Madhab with Sharh Al-Tabraizi Pg 41]
Mursal is a Da’eef narration, as is the verdict of Imam Muslim, Imam Tirmidhi, and the Jumhoor (Majority). Jarjaani said about the narration narrated with ‘AN’ that:
“And the correct (saying) is that it is connected, on the condition that the meeting is possible, and the narrator is free from tadlees.”
[Risalah fi Usool ul-Hadeeth Pg 78, Al-Dibaaj al-Madhab with Sharh Al-Tabraizi Pg 28]
23.Badr ud-Deen Muhammad bin Ibraaheem bin Jama’ah (d. 733 H) said about the narration narrated with “AN”:
“And the authentic (saying) is that upon which the Jumhoor of Ulama, Muhadditheen, Fuqaha, and the experts of Usool are (agreed) that it is Muttasil (connected), on the condition that the meeting is possible, and the teacher and student both are free from tadlees.”
[Al-Manhamil ar-Raawi fi Mukhtasir Uloom ul-Hadeeth al-Nabwi: Pg 54]
This proves that Qaadhi Ibn Jama’ah used to consider the An’ana of a Mudallis to be on the contrary to the authenticity of a hadeeth.
24.Hussain bin Abdullah at-Teebi (d. 743H), has narrated the usool of Imam Shafi’ee in the pamphlet of Usool ul-Hadeeth, and did not oppose it, therefore he was agreed with Imam Shafi’ee in this issue. See: Al-Khulasa fi Usool ul-Hadeeth (Pg 72).
25.Jalal ud-Deen as-Suyooti said about the narration narrated with ‘AN’ that:
“And whoever narrates with ‘AN’ (From), or ‘Anna’ (Certainly), then consider it to be connected, on the condition that the meeting is known, and he is not a Mudallis.”
[Alfiya as-Suyooti ma’ Sharh Ahmed Shaakir: Pg 28, 29]
Suyooti said about Mudallis that:
“And if they clarify of having it heard, then their narration is Acceptable, Jumhoor has declared it to be authentic.”
[Alfiyat as-Suyooti: Pg 31]
26.Umar bin Raslaan Al-Balqaini (D. 805 H) narrated the saying of Imam Shafi’ee in the explanation of Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah, and did not oppose it; therefore this is the proof of his acceptance to this principle. See: Muhaasin al-Istalaah (Pg 235)
27.Ibraaheem bin Moosa bin Ayyub Al-Abnaasi (d. 802H) also narrated the above mentioned principle of Imam Shafi’ee and did not oppose it, therefore this is the proof of his accordance with this principle. See: Al-Shazi Al-Fayaah (Vol 1 Pg 177).
“And the narration of a Mudallis narrated with ‘AN’ is not evidence, until his clarification of hearing it is found from another chain.”
[Umdat ul-Qaari 112/3, Al-Hadeeth Hazro: 66 Pg 27]
And he said:
“And they (Muhadditheen) are agreed upon it that when a Mudallis says ‘AN’, then he is not taken as evidence, until it gets proven from the other chain that he has heard this hadeeth from the other person (his shaikh).”
[Sharh Sunan Abu Dawood by Al-Aynee: Vol 1 Pg 255 H. 92]
“And the narration of a Mudallis narrated with ‘AN’ is not evidence, until the clarification of hearing it is proven.”
[Sharh Al-Karmaani lis-Saheeh Al-Bukhari: Vol 3 Pg 62 under H. 214]
“And the ‘An’ana (narrated with AN) of a Mudallis is not Hujjah, until the clarification of his hearing it is proven.”
[Irshaad as-Saari Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari: Vol 1 Pg 286]
31. Al-Sabat ibn Al-Ajmi said:
“And the correct explanation is that….. And if he (Mudallis) narrates with words which are doubtful, then its ruling is that of a Mursal. ”
[Al-Tabiyeen li-asmaa ul-Mudalliseen Pg 12]
Meaning the unclarified narration of a Mudallis is like a Mursal (unconnected) narration. It should be kept in mind that according to the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen, Mursal is Da’eef due to being unconnected.
32.Ibn al-Qattaan al-Faasi said:
“The Mu’an’an (narrated with ‘AN’) narration of A’mash is susceptible for indicating Inqitaa (disconnection), because he is a Mudallis”
[Bayaan al-Wahem wal Aihaam: 435/2 H. 441]
This indicates that Ibn Al-Qattan used to consider the narration of Mudallis narrated with “AN” to be disconnected.
33.Muhammad bin Fudayl bin Gharwaan (d. 195H) said:
“Mugheerah (bin Miqsam) used to do Tadlees, thus we only used to write those of his narrations in which he used to say Haddathana (narrated to us) Ibraaheem.”
[Musnad Ali bin al-Ja’d: 430/1 H. 663, Chain Hasan]
This indicates that Muhammad bin Fudayl also used to consider the unclarified narration or the Mu’an’an narration of Mudallis to be Da’eef and rejected.
34.Ibn Rasheed al-Fahri (D. 721 H) said:
“It is enough to be known for a person who gets introduced with tadlees that his ahadeeth will be avoided, until his matter gets clear (meaning his clarification is proven).”
[Al-Sunan al-Abayn: Pg 66]
35.Imam Ya’qoob bin Shaibah rahimahullah (d. 262 H) said:
“Thus whoever commits tadlees from unreliable narrators and from those whom he has not heard then he has crossed the limit of tadlees, regarding which Ulama have given permission.”
[Al-Kifayah: Pg 362, Chain Saheeh]
This indicates that according to Ya’qoob bin Shaibah, the narration of a Mudallis who commits tadlees from Da’eef narrators, and similarly, Mursal Khafi, both are unacceptable.
36.Sakhaawi said in the explanation to the saying of Iraaqi “is proven once” that:
“And its explanation is that, with the proof of his committing tadlees once, it has become his apparent state in (all) his mu’an’an narrations (that he is a Mudallis). Just as the apparent state with the proof of one meeting becomes that he (non Mudallis) has heard (from his Teacher); and similarly, if the lie of a person gets proven (even) in one hadeeth, then it becomes his apparent state (that he is a liar), and acting upon all his narrations become unaccepted, even with the possibility that he can be truthful in some of his narrations.”
[Fath ul-Mugheeth Sharh Alfiya al-Hadeeth: Vol 1 Pg 193]
By mentioning two important proofs, Sakhawi has accorded with Imam Shafi’ee, and got included in the list of those who do not accept the narration of a Mudallis narrated with “AN”, even if he might have committed tadlees only once in his liftime.
37.Abdur Rauf Al-Manawi (Soofi) said:
“According to the Muttaqaddimeen, such as (Imam) Muslim, the narration of a contemporary narrated with ‘AN’ is affirmed on hearing, and they (Muslim) have claimed Ijmaa on this issue, and on the contrary to it, the narration of non-Contemporary is Mursal or disconnected, and the condition of considering its hearing to be affirmed is the proof of his contemporariness, except Mudallis for his An’ana is not clarified.”
[Al-Yawaqeet wal durrur fi Sharh Nukhbat ibn Hajar: 210/1]
38.Zakariyah Al-Ansaari (d. 926H) narrated the saying of Iraaqi and did not oppose it. See: Fathul Baaqi fi Sharh Alfiya al-Iraaqi (Pg 169, 170)
39.Imam Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan said:
“I have only narrated those narrations of Sufyaan ath-Thawri in which he used to say, Haddathana (Narrated to us), or Haddathani (Narrated to me)….”
[Kitaab al-Illal wa Ma’rifat ur-Rijaal by Imam Ahmed: 207/1 T. 1130, Chain Saheeh]
40.Ibn Al-Tarkamani (Al-Hanafi) while criticizing a hadeeth, wrote:
“There are three defects in it: Thawri is Mudallis and he has narrated this narration with ‘AN’….”
[Al-Jawher al-Naqi: 262/8, Al-Hadeeth Hazro: 67 Pg 17]
After all the affirmations from Usool ul-Hadeeth, Shurooh ul-Hadeeth, Muhadditheen, and other Scholars, we come to know that, the narration of a Mudallis narrated with “AN” is Da’eef and Mardood.
Just as, after some exceptions from the rules and principles being proven, the ruling of Aam (general) remains on Umoom (Generality), and the Khaas (Specific) is taken out of the Aam (General). Similarly, this principle (of tadlees and mudalliseen) also has some exceptions, which are as follows:
*In Sahihayn (Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim), the narrations of all the Mudalliseen are verified to have been heard from, or are proven from reliable Mutabi’aat and Shawaahid [Supporting evidences].
*If a reliable Mutabi’at or a strong Shaahid is proven for the hadeeth of a Mudallis, then the objection of Tadlees gets waived. Just as, if a strong shaahid or Mutabi’at is found for a Da’eef narrator then the weakness gets waived.
*The narrations of some Mudalliseen narrated by some specific Students, are verified with Samaa’ (hearing), for example: The narrations of Shu’bah from Qatadah, A’mash, and Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee, and the narrations of Shafi’ee from Sufyaan ibn Uyainah, and the narrations of Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan from Sufyaan ath-Thawri are verified to have been heard, so in this case the ‘An’ana of Mudallis does not harm the authenticity of the narration.
*Some Mudalliseen did not used to commit tadlees from some of their Shuyookh, For example: Ibn Jurayj from Ataa bin Abi Ribaah, and Hushaym from Hussain, did not use to do tadlees. Therefore, such Mu’an’an narrations are also confirmed on having heard, and they are not harmful.
*Similarly, if something else gets proven from the evidences and affirmations, then it will be acceptable. Apart from these exceptional situations, the Mu’an’an (narrated with “AN”) narrations of all the Mudalliseen are Da’eef (with their conditions).
Some examples for the precedence of Khaas on Aam and of Exception are as follows:
*Some narrators are Siqah (reliable), but when they narrate from their specific Shuyookh, then that narration becomes Da’eef, For example: Sufyaan bin Hussain is Siqah (reliable), but his narrations from Imam Zuhri are Da’eef.
· Some narrators are Da’eef, but when they narrate from their specific Shuyookh, then that narration is Hasan (as confirmed as Muhadditheen), For example: Abdullah bin Umar Al-Umri is Da’eef, but his narrations from Naafi’ are Hasan.
*The narrations of some narrators are Da’eef due to their Ikhtilaat (deterioration of Memory), but the affirmation for some of their specific students is proven that they have heard ahadeeth from their Shaikh before his Ikhtilaat, therefore those narrations are Saheeh, For example: The narrations of Shu’bah from ‘Ataa bin as-Saa’ib are Saheeh.
*Mursal narrations are Da’eef, but the Mursal narrations of the companions of the Prophet [peace be upon him] are Saheeh, and there is the consensus of Ahlus-Sunnah on it.
*Da’eef narration becomes Hasan with a Saheeh or Hasan Shaahid (supporting evidence).
Just as, the above mentioned exceptions are followed in Usool ul-Hadeeth and Asma ur-Rijaal, and the Aam Daleel (General Evidence) is not presented against the Khaas Daleel (Specific evidence), Similarly, in the issue of Tadlees the proven exceptions are to be followed, and Aam Daleel is not presented against the Khaas Daleel.
Note: It is not proven from any evidence that the Mu’an’an narrations of A’mash and Sufyaan ath-Thawri are Saheeh. And the Mu’an’an narrations of Abuz-Zubayr, Hassan Basri, Zuhri and others are Da’eef!
The Tabaqaati Taqseem (division in levels) of Haafidh Ibn Hajar in this issue, is wrong due to many reasons, For example:
*This division is against the Usool ut-Tadlees of Jumhoor of Muhadditheen.
*This division is against the principles of the book, Nukhbat ul-Fikar, of Haafidh Ibn Hajar himself.
*This division is against the book, Talkhees ul-Habeer (19/3), of Haafidh Ibn Hajar himself.
*Ahl ul-Hadeeth and Hanafi, In fact even Brailwi and Deobandi are not agreed upon this division.
Author: Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai [Rahimahullah]