Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, and the issue of Tadlis

الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلوٰة والسلام على رسوله الأمين، أما بعد:

In the narration of Hadith, the famous doctrine and belief of the esteemed Muhaddithin regarding tadlis, i.e., tadlis in the chain of narration (isnad), is that if tadlis by a narrator in the chain is established, then his narration with the word «عن» (from) is weak. For example, Shaykh Irshad al-Haq Athari Sahib wrote:
“And the Muhaddithin agree that Qatadah is a mudallis (one who practices tadlis) as will be detailed later. And they also agree that the ‘an’anah’ (narration with ‘عن‘) of a mudallis causes weakness. Therefore, calling his chain authentic is questionable.”

Athari Sahib further stated: “And it is an established principle that the ‘mu’annan’ narration of a mudallis is not accepted.”

Respected Athari Sahib criticized many mudallis narrators’ mu’annan (with ‘عن‘) narrations and declared those narrations as not authentic. For example:
➊ Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki

➋ Qatadah ibn Du’amah

➌ Sulayman ibn Mihran al-A’mash

➍ Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha’i

➎ Muhammad ibn Ajlan

Among these, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and Sulayman al-A’mash were both from the second tier according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani’s classification. See al-Fath al-Mubeen

Ibn Hajar’s classification is not correct nor is it accepted by consensus. Also see

For detailed research on tadlis, see my book “Research, Reformative and Scholarly Articles”

Whether a mudallis narrator is frequently or rarely practicing tadlis, if it is established that he did tadlis even once in his lifetime and there is no evidence of his retraction or specification, or if reliable Muhaddithin have declared him a mudallis, then except for Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, in other books such a mudallis’s non-explicit and mu’annan narration is weak unless there is reliable following, specification of narration, or a supporting witness. Specification of narration means that from some teachers the mudallis’s mu’annan narration is authentic or some of his students’ narrations are based on hearing (sama’).
This is the principle on which Ahl al-Hadith, Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali, Deobandi, Barelvi, and others have been criticizing the opposing party’s narrations and continue to do so. However, in the present era, some modern scholars like Hatim al-Sharif al-Auni and others have introduced some rare opinions creating the impression of frequent and rare tadlis, attempting to torpedo and sink this famous issue of Hadith principles. Our article presents a refutation of these people:
① Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

ومن عرفناه دلس مرة فقد أبان لنا عورته فى روايته

If it becomes known to us that he did tadlis once, then he has revealed his concealed matter before us.

Then Imam al-Shafi’i said:

فقلنا: لا نقبل من مدلس حديثا حتى يقول فيه: حدثني أو سمعت

So we said: We do not accept any Hadith from a mudallis even if he says ‘hadathani’ or ‘sami’tu’.

From Imam al-Shafi’i’s stated principle, it is understood that if it is established that a narrator did tadlis once in his entire life, then his narration with ‘عن‘ is not acceptable.
A zealous Hanbali, Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH), wrote:

ولم يعتبر الشافعي أن يتكرر التدليس من الراوي ولا أن يغلب على حديثه بل اعتبر ثبوت تدليسه ولو بمرة واحدة

And al-Shafi’i did not accept the reliability of a narrator who repeatedly practices tadlis, nor did he accept that tadlis predominates in his narrations, rather he considered the proof of tadlis from the narrator, even if it was only once in his lifetime.

Imam al-Shafi’i is not alone in this principle; the majority of scholars agree with him. Therefore, Zarkashi’s statement وهو نص غريب لم يحكمه الجمهور

is incorrect.
If someone insists that Imam al-Shafi’i was alone in this methodology or against the majority (!), then he should calmly consider the following references:
② It is narrated from Imam Abu Qatada Ubaidullah ibn Fudala al-Nasa’i (trustworthy and reliable) that (Imam) Ishaq ibn Rahwayh said: I wrote to Ahmad ibn Hanbal requesting that he send me some of Imam al-Shafi’i’s books as per my need, and he sent me the book Al-Risalah.

From this it is understood that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) was satisfied (agreed) with Al-Risalah and there is no rejection from him regarding Imam al-Shafi’i on the issue of tadlis. Therefore, according to him also, the mudallis’s narration with ‘عن‘ is weak, whether he practiced tadlis frequently or rarely.
Imam Abu Zur’ah al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal had examined Imam al-Shafi’i’s books carefully.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal told his student Abdul Malik ibn Abdul Hamid al-Maymuni:
انظر فى كتاب الرسالة فإنه من أحسن كتبه Look at the book Al-Risalah! Because it is among his best books.

Note: Presenting Imam Ahmad’s statement (I do not know) from Abi Dawud’s questions

against this clarification is useless and rejected.
Using Masa’il al-Imam Ahmad

, someone wrote: Yet Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) also hesitated on Hashim’s ‘an’anah’.
It is submitted that if Imam Hashim (who enjoyed tadlis) ‘an’anah’ was not harmful, then what was the meaning of his hesitation on his ‘an’anah’ narration? Hesitation on a narration means it is not a valid proof. Can one hesitate to call a Sahih Hadith authentic?!
When scholars say a narration is weak due to mudallis’s ‘an’anah’, the real reason is that the narrator is a mudallis and the narration is not established on hearing (sama’). Once sama’ is established, the narration is immediately accepted without hesitation.
Benefit: Imam Ishaq ibn Rahwayh said that Ahmad ibn Hanbal said about Al-Risalah:

هذا كتاب أعجب به عبد الرحمن بن مهدي

This book was liked by Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi.

③ Imam Ishaq ibn Rahwayh received Imam al-Shafi’i’s book Al-Risalah but did not reject the issue of tadlis as no narration proves otherwise, so it is understood that he agreed with Imam al-Shafi’i on tadlis.
④ Imam Ismail ibn Yahya al-Muzani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

كتبت كتاب الرسالة منذ زيادة على أربعين سنة و أنا أقرأه و أنظر فيه و يقرأ على فما من مرة قرأت أو قرئ على إلا استفدت منه شيئا لم أكن أحسنه.

More than forty years ago, I wrote down Al-Risalah (by copying) and I read it, ponder over it, and it is read before me, and each time I read or hear it, I gain benefit which I did not understand well before.

Despite reading and teaching for forty years, Imam al-Muzani did not find the tadlis issue wrong as no authentic narration proves otherwise, so it appears he also did not accept the mu’annan narration of a mudallis who did tadlis once.
⑤ The famous Muhaddith al-Bayhaqi narrated the tadlis-related statement from Imam al-Shafi’i’s Al-Risalah without criticism but tacitly approved it.

It is understood that Imam al-Bayhaqi also followed this doctrine.
Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Bahadur al-Zarkashi (d. 794 AH) said:
وقد حكم البيهقي بعدم قبول قول من دلس مرة. Whoever practices tadlis once, al-Bayhaqi decided that his mu’annan narration is not accepted.

⑥ Khateeb Baghdadi narrated Imam al-Shafi’i’s statement and did not reject it.

Rather, regarding tadlis, he narrated الغالب على حديثه لم تقبل رواياته and said: وقال آخرون: خبر المدلس لا يقبل إلا أن يورده على وجه مبين غير محتمل لإيهام فإن أورده على ذلك قبل، وهذا هو الصحيح عندنا Others said: The narration of a mudallis is not accepted unless he explicitly states hearing (sama’) without any doubt. If he does so, his narration is accepted, and this is the correct view according to us.

⑦ The zealous Shafi’i Hafiz Ibn al-Salah al-Shahrazuri (d. 643 AH) said:

والحكم بأنه لا يقبل من المدلس حتى يبين، قد أجراه الشافعي رضى الله عنه فيمن عرفناه دلس مرة. والله أعلم

The ruling is that the narration of a mudallis is not accepted without explicit statement of hearing (sama’), and Imam al-Shafi’i stated this about a person who, as far as we know, did tadlis only once. Allah knows best.

It is understood that Ibn al-Salah, like Imam al-Shafi’i, considered the mu’annan narration of a mudallis who did tadlis once as contradictory to the authenticity of Hadith.
Ibn al-Salah’s statement has been quoted in later books of Hadith principles without refutation, so it is accepted by the majority.
⑧ Allama Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (d. 677 AH) said about mudallis:

فما رواه بلفظ محتمل لم يبين فيه السماع فمرسل… و هذا الحكم جار فيمن دلس مرة

If he narrates with a word that allows doubt and does not explicitly state hearing, then it is mursal (i.e., weak/not accepted)… and this ruling applies to one who did tadlis only once.

It is understood that Nawawi, like Imam al-Shafi’i, considered the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration weak and rejected, even if he did tadlis only once in his lifetime.
⑨ The famous Sufi Hafiz Siraj al-Din Umar ibn Ali ibn Ahmad al-Ansari ibn al-Mulqin (d. 804 AH) narrated Ibn al-Salah’s statement: والحكم بأنه لا يقبل من المدلس حتى يبين أجراه الشافعي فيمن عرفناه دلس مرة without refutation, thus agreeing with both Imam al-Shafi’i and Ibn al-Salah. See al-Muqta’ fi ‘Uloom al-Hadith

⑩ The famous trustworthy Muhaddith and mufassir Hafiz Ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi (d. 774 AH) narrated Imam al-Shafi’i’s statement on tadlis without criticism or opposition. See Ikhtisar ‘Uloom al-Hadith

⑪ Hafiz Abu al-Fadl Abdul Rahim ibn al-Husayn al-Iraqi al-Athari (d. 806 AH) said: والشافعي أثبته بمرة and Imam al-Shafi’i established tadlis for one who does it once.

It is understood that al-Iraqi also agreed with Imam al-Shafi’i on this issue.
⑫ The famous Sufi Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) explained al-Iraqi’s statement أثبته بمرة as:
وبيان ذلك أنه بثبوت تدليسه مرة صار ذلك هو الظاهر من حاله فى معنعناته كما إنه ثبوت اللقاء مرة صار الظاهر من حاله السماع، وكذا من عرف بالكذب فى حديث واحد صار الكذب هو الظاهر من حاله وسقط العمل بجميع حديثه مع جواز كونه صادقا فى بعضه Its explanation is that proof of tadlis once makes all his mu’annan narrations appear as if he is a mudallis, just as proof of one meeting makes it appear that he heard from his teacher, and similarly if a person is found lying in one narration, his apparent status becomes that he is a liar and all his narrations become invalid, though he may be truthful in some narrations.

By presenting two important evidences, Sakhawi supported Imam al-Shafi’i and joined those who do not accept the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration, even if he did tadlis only once in his lifetime.
⑬ Zakariya ibn Muhammad al-Ansari (d. 926 AH) also narrated al-Iraqi’s statement (see point 11) and explained its evidence without opposition.
See Fath al-Baqi bi Sharh Alfiya al-Iraqi (research by Hafiz Thanaullah al-Zahidi)

It is understood that he also agreed with Imam al-Shafi’i on this issue.
⑭ Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH) also narrated Imam al-Shafi’i’s statement without opposition, thus confirming it. See Tadreeb al-Rawi

Moreover, Suyuti explicitly declared tadlis as criticism by saying ولو بمرة وضح.
See Alfiya al-Suyuti fi ‘Ilm al-Hadith (

research by Ahmad Muhammad Shakir)
⑮ Hafiz Ibn Hibban al-Busti (d. 354 AH) said:

الجنس الثالث: الثقات المدلسون الذين كانوا يدلسون فى الأخبار مثل قتادة ويحيى بن أبى كثير والأعمش وأبو إسحاق وابن جريج وابن إسحاق والثوري وهشيم ومن أشبههم ممن يكثر عددهم من الأئمة المرضيين وأهل الورع فى الدين كانوا يكتبون عن الكل ويروون عمن سمعوا منه فربما دلسوا عن الشيخ بعد سماعهم عنه عن أقوام ضعفاء لا يجوز الإحتجاج بأخبارهم، فما لم يقل المدلس وإن كان ثقة: حدثني أو سمعت فلا يجوز الإحتجاج بخبره، وهذا أصل أبى عبد الله محمد بن إدريس الشافعي -رحمه الله- ومن تبعه من شيوخنا

The third category is trustworthy mudallis narrators who practiced tadlis in narrations, such as Qatadah, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, A’mash, Abu Ishaq, Ibn Jurayj, Ibn Ishaq, Thawri, Hashim and their likes, who were many and among the preferred Imams and pious in religion. They wrote and narrated from those they heard from, and sometimes after hearing from the Sheikh (teacher), they narrated from weak narrators as tadlis. Their mu’annan narrations are not valid for argument. So as long as the mudallis, even if trustworthy, does not say ‘hadathani’ or ‘sami’tu’ (explicit statement of hearing), his narration is not valid for argument, and this is the principle of Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) which our teachers have followed.

In this great statement, Hafiz Ibn Hibban fully agreed with Imam al-Shafi’i on the tadlis issue and refuted the doubts of those who try to torpedo the tadlis issue by introducing strange, rare, and impractical terms like “frequent tadlis” and “rare tadlis” under the name “Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin”.
Hafiz Ibn Hibban further said:

وأما المدلسون الذين هم ثقات وعدول فإنا لا نحتج بأخبارهم إلا ما بينوا السماع فيما رووا مثل الثوري والأعمش وأبي إسحاق وأضرابهم من الأئمة المتقين (المتقنين) وأهل الورع فى الدين لأنا متى قبلنا خبر مدلس لم يبين السماع فيه -وإن كان ثقة- لزمنا قبول المقاطيع والمراسيل كلها لأنه لا يدرى لعل هذا المدلس دلس هذا الخبر عن ضعيف يهي الخبر بذكره إذا عرف، اللهم إلا أن يكون المدلس يعلم أنه ما دلس قط إلا عن ثقة فإذا كان كذلك قبلت روايته وإن لم يبين السماع وهذا ليس فى الدنيا إلا سفيان بن عيينة وحده فإنه كان يدلس ولا يدلس إلا عن ثقة متقن ولا يكاد يوجد لسفيان بن عيينة خبر دلس فيه إلا وجد ذلك الخبر بعينه قد بين سماعه عن ثقة مثل نفسه والحكم فى قبول روايته لهذه العلة -وإن لم يبين السماع فيها- كالحكم فى رواية ابن عباس إذا روى عن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم مالم يسمع منه

But for those mudallis who are trustworthy and just, we only argue from those narrations in which they explicitly state hearing, such as Thawri, A’mash, Abu Ishaq and other pious Imams, because if we accept the mudallis’s narration without explicit statement of hearing, even if trustworthy, then we must accept all disconnected and mursal narrations, as it is unknown whether the mudallis practiced tadlis on a weak narrator in that narration, which would make the narration weak, except that Allah knows best. If it is known that the mudallis only practiced tadlis on trustworthy narrators, then his narration is accepted even without explicit statement of hearing. This is only proven for Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, who practiced tadlis only on trustworthy narrators. There is no narration found where he practiced tadlis but explicitly stated hearing from a trustworthy like himself, so his narration is accepted even without explicit statement of hearing. Similarly, if Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) narrates a Hadith from the Prophet (peace be upon him) which he did not hear from him, the ruling applies.

In this reference, Hafiz Ibn Hibban declared the mudallis’s narration without explicit statement of hearing as not accepted and implicitly supported Imam al-Shafi’i.
From Hafiz Ibn Hibban’s statement, the following important points are clear:
➊ If a narrator is proven to be a mudallis, his narration without explicit statement of hearing is not accepted.
➋ Imam al-Shafi’i’s stated principle is correct.
➌ Imam al-Shafi’i is not unique in his principle; Ibn Hibban and his teachers (also Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, al-Muzani, al-Bayhaqi, Khateeb Baghdadi, etc., as proven in this article) supported Imam al-Shafi’i.
➍ The methodology that differentiates between frequent and rare tadlis is incorrect and rejected.
➎ If the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration is accepted, then why are disconnected and mursal narrations not accepted?
➏ Mudallis narrators like Imam Sufyan al-Thawri’s mu’annan and narrations without explicit statement of hearing are not accepted, even if some later scholars placed them in the second or first tier.
➐ According to Hafiz Ibn Hibban, Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah only practiced tadlis on trustworthy narrators. We differ on this last point with two evidences:
● Sometimes Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah practiced tadlis on non-trustworthy narrators. See Tarikh Yahya ibn Ma’in

, Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil

, and my book Tawdhih al-Ahkam

. Therefore, this is not a general rule but a predominant rule.
● Sometimes Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah practiced tadlis on trustworthy mudallis narrators (e.g., Ibn Jurayj). See Al-Kifayah

and Tawdhih al-Ahkam

.
I have not read anywhere that Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated only those narrations from trustworthy mudallis narrators in which they explicitly stated hearing before him. So it is not unlikely that a trustworthy mudallis narrated a narration with tadlis and Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated it after dropping that trustworthy mudallis from the chain, thus making his mu’annan narration unreliable. Allah knows best.
⑯ Husayn ibn Abdullah al-Taybi (d. 743 AH) stated Imam al-Shafi’i’s principle in his book on Hadith principles without any refutation, so he also agreed with al-Shafi’i on this issue.
See Al-Khilasah fi Usool al-Hadith

⑰ Abu Bakr al-Sayrafi (d. 330 AH) said in Kitab al-Dala’il wal-I’lam (a commentary on Al-Risalah): كل من ظهر تدليسه عن غير الثقات لم يقبل خبره حتى يقول: حدثني أو سمعت Whoever is known to practice tadlis from non-trustworthy narrators, his narration is not accepted unless he says ‘hadathani’ or ‘sami’tu’ (explicit statement of hearing).

Note: Since I do not have Kitab al-Dala’il wal-I’lam and am unaware of its existence, this reference is taken from Zarkashi, and many other scholars have also quoted Sayrafi on this.

Also, the narration is valid unless there is a criticism in the original book.
From this, it is understood that Sayrafi’s position was that for a trustworthy narrator who practiced tadlis even once from a weak narrator, only those narrations with explicit statement of hearing are accepted. Thus, Sayrafi agreed with Imam al-Shafi’i’s principle.
⑱ Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said about tadlis in isnad:

وحكم من ثبت عنه التدليس إذا كان عدلا، أن لا يقبل منه إلا ما صرح فيه بالتحديث على الأصح

The most correct view is that if tadlis is established from a narrator, even if he is just, only those narrations in which he explicitly states hearing are accepted.

It is understood that even if tadlis is established once, Hafiz Ibn Hajar considered the mudallis’s ‘an’anah’ narration contradictory to authenticity.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar said about a mudallis from the second tier, A’mash:
Because the trustworthiness of narrators in a chain does not necessarily imply authenticity, as A’mash is a mudallis and did not mention his hearing from ‘Ata’ in this Hadith.

⑲ Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Yamani (d. 1182 AH) also narrated Ibn Hajar’s above statement (point 18) as definite and without any refutation. See Asbal al-Matar ‘ala Qasab al-Sukkar

⑳ Shaykh al-Islam Siraj al-Din Umar ibn Raslan al-Balqini (d. 805 AH) narrated Imam al-Shafi’i’s statement in the commentary on Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah without refutation, thus agreeing with the principle.
See Mahasin al-Istilah

㉑ Burhan al-Din Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Ayub al-Abnasi (d. 802 AH) also narrated Imam al-Shafi’i’s principle without opposition, thus confirming it. See Al-Shadhi al-Fayyah

There are many other references as well, e.g., see Al-Nukat ‘ala Ibn al-Salah by Ibn Hajar

, etc.
Against this fundamental issue of Hadith principles, in Arab countries, Hatim al-Sharif al-Auni, Nasir ibn Hamad al-Fahd, Abdullah ibn Abdul Rahman al-Sa’d and others have started to introduce a new principle under the name Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin (and al-Muta’akhirin), which is that there are two types of mudallis:
◈ Frequent tadlis, e.g., Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid, Hajjaj ibn Artaṭah, Abu Janab al-Kalbi, etc.
◈ Rare tadlis, e.g., Qatadah, A’mash, Hashim, Thawri, Ibn Jurayj, Walid ibn Muslim, etc.
See Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin fi al-Tadlis by Nasir ibn Hamad al-Fahd

Their view is that only those narrations of a rare tadlis narrator are weak in which his tadlis is established; otherwise, they are authentic and accepted. They present the following evidence in support of their methodology:
⋆ Ya’qub ibn Shaybah said: I asked Ali ibn al-Madini: If a person practices tadlis, does his saying ‘hadathana’ suffice as proof? He replied: إذا كان الغالب عليه التدليس فلا حتى يقول: حدثنا If tadlis predominates, then until he says ‘hadathana’, it is not proof.

It is submitted that this statement is rejected and not proof for eight (8) reasons:
➊ It is against the majority, i.e., it is rare, as we have proven from many scholars’ references, and more references will follow, Insha’Allah.
Note that calling this statement the majority’s position is incorrect.
➋ Despite the narration, Khateeb Baghdadi himself practically opposed this statement. See the same article point 6.
➌ Among early Muhaddithin, explicit statements about frequent and rare tadlis narrators are not established until the third century AH (300 AH).
➍ This is an opposite meaning and an opposite meaning is not proof against explicit text.
➎ This statement is abrogated, and its evidence is that Imam Ibn al-Madini said about Sufyan al-Thawri:
والناس يحتاجون فى حديث سفيان إلى يحيى القطان لحال الإخبار يعنى على أن سفيان كان يدلس وأن يحيى القطان كان يوقفه على ما سمع مما لم يسمع People need Yahya al-Qattan in Sufyan’s Hadith because he narrated with explicit statement of hearing. Ibn al-Madini believed that Sufyan practiced tadlis and Yahya al-Qattan only narrated his explicit statement of hearing narrations.

Note that Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin do not consider Sufyan al-Thawri as frequent tadlis but many scholars consider him rare tadlis. So if Sufyan al-Thawri’s ‘عن‘ narrations without explicit statement of hearing were authentic and accepted, then why did people need Imam Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan in his narrations?
If explicit statement of hearing is not necessary in the mu’annan narration of a rare tadlis narrator, then it is incomprehensible why people needed to refer to Yahya al-Qattan.
Here as a benefit, Imam Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan said:

ما كتبت عن سفيان شيئا إلا ما قال: حدثني أو حدثنا إلا حديثين…

I only wrote from Sufyan what he said ‘hadathani’ or ‘hadathana’, except for two Hadiths.

Note that he narrated those two narrations.
It is understood that Yahya al-Qattan did not agree with this modern Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin but considered Sufyan al-Thawri’s ‘an’anah’ and lack of explicit statement of hearing as contradictory to authenticity; otherwise, why such trouble?
➏ Ibn al-Madini’s statement was not accepted by Ahl al-Hadith (e.g., Shaykh Irshad al-Haq Athari Sahib criticized narrations of Abu al-Zubayr, Qatadah, A’mash, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, Muhammad ibn Ajlan, etc., due to tadlis) nor by Hanafi, Shafi’i, Deobandi, Barelvi, and others. For example, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi and Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi have criticized many mudallis or tadlis-attributed narrators’ narrations due to tadlis, as will be shown later. Also see my book Ilmi Maqalat

This statement is not quoted as proof in general books of Hadith principles, and overlooking it is evidence that it is incorrect and rejected.
➐ Identifying who was frequent tadlis and who was rare tadlis from the early scholars and trying to make common Muslims agree on it is like playing with fire.
➑ This principle is not accepted in books of disputed issues and scholarly debates; rather, the opposite is proven.
⋆ Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in (may Allah have mercy on him) said about mudallis narrators:

لا يكون حجة فيما دلس

Whoever practices tadlis, his narration is not proof.

This statement may also mean that a narration with ‘عن‘ is not proof. Currently, four references supporting this meaning are presented:
➊ Imam Abu Nu’aym al-Fadl ibn Dukayn al-Kufi (d. 218 AH) said about Sufyan al-Thawri: إذا دلس عنه يقول: قال عمرو بن مرة and when you practice tadlis from them (Amr ibn Murrah), you say: Amr ibn Murrah said.

It is understood that Imam Abu Nu’aym considered non-explicit statement of hearing narration as tadlis.
➋ Tahawi said: And this Hadith was not heard by Zuhri from Urwah; they practiced tadlis with it.

Here Zuhri’s ‘عن‘ Urwah narration is declared دلس به.
➌ Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Bisar Imam al-Maghazi narrated a Hadith from Imam Zuhri as فذكر without explicit statement of hearing, so Imam Ibn Khuzaymah doubted its authenticity with explicit statement ان صح الخبر and said: أنا استثنيت صحة هذا الخبر لأني خائف أن يكون محمد بن إسحاق لم يسمع من محمد بن مسلم وإنما دلسه عنه I excepted this narration’s authenticity because I fear Muhammad ibn Ishaq did not hear it from Muhammad ibn Muslim (al-Zuhri) and they practiced tadlis in it.

This statement applies tadlis to narration without explicit statement of hearing.
➍ Jarir ibn Hazim narrated from Ibn Abi Najih with ‘عن‘, so al-Bayhaqi said: وهذا إسناد صحيح إلا أنهم يرون أن جرير بن حازم أخذه من محمد بن إسحاق ثم دلسه فإنه بين فيه سماع جرير من ابن أبى نجيح صار الحديث صحيحا. والله أعلم
And this chain is apparently authentic except that scholars think Jarir took it from Muhammad ibn Ishaq and then practiced tadlis (i.e., narrated with ‘عن‘). So if Jarir’s explicit statement of hearing from Ibn Abi Najih becomes clear, the Hadith will be authentic. Allah knows best.

[Many scholars have declared the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration as ضعيف لتدليس weak, e.g., a narration in Sunan Ibn Majah

about الوليد بن مسلم عن ابن ثوبان عن أبيه عن مكحول عن جبير بن نفير عن عبد الله بن عمرو عن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم was declared weak by Busiri:
هذا إسناد ضعيف، فيه الوليد بن مسلم وهو مدلس وقد عنعنه وكذلك مكحول الدمشقي… This chain is weak; Walid ibn Muslim is a mudallis and narrated with ‘عن‘, similarly Makhul al-Dimashqi (mudallis) narrated with ‘عن‘.

In the mentioned narration, Walid ibn Muslim’s tadlis is not specifically established, but Busiri declared it tadlis due to ‘عن‘, although he was not unique in this narration but followed by a group, as evident from Busiri’s other statements. Imam Makhul’s tadlis is not established, let alone frequent tadlis or specific tadlis in this narration. Therefore, Busiri’s declaring this narration weak due to Makhul’s tadlis is evidence that scholars call the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration tadlis and do not require explicit tadlis in a specific narration to call it tadlis.
It is proven that عنعنه is correctly called دلسه.
The Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin party’s claim that every mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration is authentic except when explicit tadlis is proven in a specific narration, then only that narration is weak, is incorrect from the perspective of Hadith principles; otherwise, there would be no difference between mudallis and non-mudallis ‘عن‘ narrations.
If a trustworthy non-mudallis narrator is proven not to have heard a specific narration from his teacher, then due to the cause, that narration is weak.
Benefit: The objection of tadlis on Imam Makhul in the mentioned Sunan Ibn Majah narration is incorrect, and due to Abdul Rahman ibn Thabit ibn Thuban being trustworthy according to the majority, he was Hasan al-Hadith. Therefore, this narration is Hasan by itself and has supporting evidence. Alhamdulillah.
From these references, it is understood that the word tadlis can also be applied to narrations without explicit statement of hearing, so Imam Ibn Ma’in’s statement should be understood as per the research of the majority of Muhaddithin and scholars.
Ya’qub ibn Sufyan al-Farsi (may Allah have mercy on him) said و حديث سفيان و أبى إسحاق و الأعمش ما لم يعلم أنه مدلس يقوم مقام الحجة (and Sufyan, Abu Ishaq, and A’mash’s Hadith, when it is not known whether tadlis was done, is accepted as proof), which has the same meaning as Imam Ibn Ma’in’s statement.
How will it be known whether Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu Ishaq al-Sabi’i, and A’mash practiced tadlis in a particular Hadith or not? The answer is simple: if explicit statement of hearing is proven, then it is definite that they did not practice tadlis; if not proven, then there is a strong fear that they practiced tadlis in that narration, hearing it from a non-trustworthy narrator and dropping it, as Sufyan al-Thawri heard a Hadith from a non-trustworthy narrator who narrated it from ‘Asim, then Sufyan narrated the same Hadith from ‘Asim without explicit statement of hearing, so his student Abu ‘Asim said: We think Sufyan al-Thawri practiced tadlis in this Hadith. See Sunan al-Daraqutni

and Ilmi Maqalat

⋆ Sheikh Abdullah ibn Abdul Rahman al-Sa’d (may Allah preserve him) of Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin called Imam al-Shafi’i’s principle of tadlis “theoretical talk” and made the strange claim that Imam al-Shafi’i himself may not have practiced it because in his books he sometimes accepted the mu’annan narrations of Ibn Jurayj without mentioning that Ibn Jurayj heard them from his teachers.
See Al-Risalah

and regarding Abu al-Zubayr

!!
It is submitted that this claim is false for several reasons:
➊ Imam al-Shafi’i’s mere narration of Hadith without saying “its chain is authentic” is not proof.
➋ It is not necessary that the explicit statement of hearing by the mudallis himself be proven from Imam al-Shafi’i; rather, explicit statement in another book suffices, as is the practice of scholars regarding mudallis narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
➌ Details of the narrations are as follows:
●

The explicit statement of hearing is present in Kitab al-Um

. See

●

Ibn Jurayj’s narration from ‘Ata’ is strong, so explicit statement of hearing is not necessary here; also, it supports the authentic Hadith narrated by Sayyiduna Jubayr ibn Mut’im (may Allah be pleased with him)

.
●

The narration is mursal, and explicit statement of hearing from Ibn Abi Malika is present in Akhbar Makkah by al-Fakihi

.
●

Explicit statement of hearing of Abu al-Zubayr is present in Sunan al-Nasa’i

.
●

Explicit statement of hearing of Abu al-Zubayr is present in Sunan al-Nasa’i

.
● Someone also cited Al-Risalah paragraph 1220 against Imam al-Shafi’i’s principle, but explicit statement of hearing is present there with أخبره. It is proven that Sheikh Abdullah al-Sa’d’s opposition to Imam al-Shafi’i is false.
Some modern scholars of Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin claim that every narration of a trustworthy mudallis without explicit statement of hearing (‘عن‘) is authentic except when explicit tadlis is proven in a specific narration, then only that narration is weak!!
Our twenty-one (21) references are sufficient to refute this rejected and incorrect methodology, but more references are also presented:
㉒ Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said about a narration of Qatadah from Abu Nadhrah:

ولم يذكر قتادة سماعا من أبى نضرة فى هذا

And Qatadah did not mention his hearing from Abu Nadhrah in this narration.

It is understood that according to Imam Bukhari, the mudallis’s lack of explicit statement of hearing contradicts the authenticity of Hadith.
㉓ Ibn Khuzaymah criticized a narration of A’mash from Habib ibn Abi Thabit from ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah from (Ibn) Umar, saying: Another point is that A’mash is a mudallis and did not mention his hearing from Habib ibn Abi Thabit. Etc.

㉔ Imam Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj (may Allah have mercy on him) said: I used to watch Qatadah’s mouth; when he said ‘I heard’ or ‘so-and-so narrated to us’, I memorized it, and when he said ‘so-and-so narrated’, I left it.

It is understood that Imam Shu’bah also did not consider the mudallis’s narration without explicit statement of hearing as proof. Also see Ilmi Maqalat

㉕ Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr said: And they (the Muhaddithin) said: A’mash’s tadlis (i.e., ‘عن‘ narration) is not accepted because when asked about his mu’annan narration, he referred to a non-trustworthy narrator. Etc.

Ibn Abd al-Barr also has a regrettable ambiguous statement

, but it is rejected because it is against the majority.
㉖ Muhammad ibn Fudayl ibn Ghazwan (d. 195 AH) said: Mughirah (ibn Muqsim) practiced tadlis, so we only wrote from him the narration in which he said ‘hadathana Ibrahim’.

It is understood that Muhammad ibn Fudayl also considered the mudallis’s narration without explicit statement of hearing as weak and rejected.
㉗ Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi (d. 628 AH) said: ومعنعن الأعمش عرضة لتبين الإنقطاع فإنه مدلس and A’mash’s mu’annan narration is subject to discontinuity because he is a mudallis.

If the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration were absolutely authentic, then what is the meaning of being subject to discontinuity?
㉘ About Zuhri’s narration from Urwah, Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi said:

الزهري لم يسمع من عروة هذا الحديث فلعله دلسه

Zuhri did not hear this Hadith from Urwah, so he might have practiced tadlis in it.

㉙ Imam Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan also considered the mudallis’s lack of explicit statement of hearing as contradictory to authenticity, as proven by his practice.
See the same article (point 21) refuting Ibn al-Madini’s statement.
㉚ Ibn al-Turkumani Hanafi criticized a narration saying:
It has three causes (reasons for weakness): Thawri is a mudallis and narrated it with ‘عن‘…

It is understood that Ibn al-Turkumani also considered proof of explicit statement of hearing necessary in every narration of a mudallis narrator, and narration without explicit statement of hearing is weak.
There are many other references, e.g., Ayni Hanafi said: Sufyan al-Thawri was among mudallis narrators, and the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration is not proof unless explicit statement of hearing is proven from another chain.

Now ten references from contemporary Ahl al-Hadith scholars are presented:
㉛ Maulana Irshad al-Haq Athari Sahib declared the mu’annan and non-explicit statement of hearing narrations of mudallis narrators from Ibn Hajar’s third and second tiers as not authentic and weak, as stated at the beginning of this article with references.
㉜ Maulana Muhammad Dawood Arshad Sahib wrote after declaring Imam Sufyan al-Thawri as mudallis:
When it became certain that Sufyan al-Thawri was a mudallis, then listen that in the discussed Hadiths Imam Sufyan al-Thawri did not explicitly state hearing but narrated mu’annan, and the mudallis’s narration without explicit statement of hearing is weak. Etc.

㉝ Al-Dhahabi, in “Asr Haqqan”, Sheikh Abdul Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu’allimi al-Yamani al-Makki (may Allah have mercy on him) declared a mu’annan narration of Sufyan al-Thawri as weak, stating the first reason that Sufyan practiced tadlis and no explicit statement of hearing is found in any chain. See Al-Tanqil bima fi Taneeb al-Kawthari min al-Abatil

and

㉞ Respected Mubashir Ahmad Rabbani Sahib wrote criticism on a narration of A’mash as follows:
A’mash is a mudallis and practices tadlis from weak and unknown narrators, and he did not explicitly state hearing in this narration.

Also see your Masa’il wa unka Hal

It is understood that Rabbani Sahib considers the mudallis’s mu’annan narration (outside Sahihain) as weak and further information can be obtained by contacting him.
㉟ Maulana Abdul Rahman Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) declared a narration attributed to Sayyiduna Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) about wiping over socks as weak and said: في سنده الأول الأعمش وهو مدلس ورواه عن الحكم بالعنعنة ولم يذكر سماعه منه… In its first chain is A’mash who is a mudallis and narrated it with ‘عن‘ from Hukm (bin Utaybah) without explicit statement of hearing. Etc.

㊱ Regarding Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, a mudallis from Ibn Hajar’s second tier, Saudi Arabia’s famous Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Baz (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
ويحيى مدلس والمدلس إذا لم يصرح بالسماع لم يحتج به إلا ما كان فى الصحيحين And Yahya is a mudallis, and if the mudallis does not explicitly state hearing, then his narration is not proof unless it is in Sahihain, then it is proof.

Also see Hafiz Abdul Manan Nurpuri Sahib’s book: Ahkam wa Masa’il

㊲ Maulana Muhammad Yahya Gondalvi (may Allah have mercy on him) stated the general principle about the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration that it is not acceptable.

Gondalvi Sahib declared Sufyan al-Thawri’s tadlis (‘an’anah’) as the cause of weakness of the narration. See Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi translated

He said: The weakness of this narration is due to Sufyan al-Thawri’s tadlis. Sufyan is a mudallis, and when a mudallis narrates with ‘عن‘, it is not proof, and the mentioned narration is also with ‘عن‘, so it cannot be declared authentic.

Gondalvi Sahib later retracted his earlier statement in Khair al-Baraheen, saying that initially he wrote that Sufyan’s tadlis is not harmful but later research showed it is harmful.

㊳ Malik Abdul Aziz Manazir Multani (may Allah have mercy on him), former head of Madrasa Arabia Dar al-Hadith Muhammadiyah Multan, said about a narration of Qatadah:
Since Qatadah is a mudallis and narrates mu’annan, such Hadith is not proof.

㊴ Maulana Muhammad Abu al-Qasim Saif ibn Muhammad Sa’id al-Banarsi (may Allah have mercy on him) criticized a narration saying:
It is not known and not acceptable because one of its narrators is Sufyan al-Thawri, a mudallis, and narrated with ‘عن‘. Etc.

㊵ Regarding Zakariya ibn Abi Za’idah, a mudallis from Ibn Hajar’s second tier, Maulana Khawaja Muhammad Qasim (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote:
It is reported that in the chain of Hadith of Hazrat Nu’man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with him), Zakariya ibn Abi Za’idah is a mudallis who narrated with ‘عن‘.

Manhaj al-Muntaqid members neither accept Imam al-Shafi’i’s stated principle nor believe in Ibn Hajar’s classification. Therefore, Hafiz Muhammad Gondalvi (may Allah have mercy on him), former Sheikh al-Hadith of Jamia Islamia Gujranwala, criticized a narration saying:
In the chain of this Hadith is Imam Qatadah, who is from the third tier of mudallis narrators. He narrates with ‘عن‘, meaning he does not say that he heard this Hadith. Such Hadith is not proof. Etc.

Also see Tawdhih al-Kalam

There are many other references, and contemporary defenders of the true methodology like respected Abu al-Hasan Mubashir Ahmad Rabbani, Maulana Muhammad Dawood Arshad, Abu al-Asjad Muhammad Siddiq Raza, Hafiz Umar Siddiq (may Allah preserve them) and others maintain that except Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the mudallis’s ‘عن‘ narration is not proof, and this is the Mufti’s statement and practice.
After these forty references, ten references from Barelvis and Deobandis are presented:
㊶ Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi wrote about a narration of Abdullah ibn Abi Najih al-Makki al-Mufassir (third tier according to Ibn Hajar):
Its basis is Ibn Abi Najih who was a mudallis and narrated with ‘an’anah’, and ‘an’anah’ of a mudallis is rejected and unreliable according to the majority of Muhaddithin.

He also narrated criticism of tadlis on Shareek al-Qadi (second tier according to Ibn Hajar). See Fatawa Razawiyyah

㊷ Barelvi debater Muhammad Abbas Rizvi Barelvi Raza Khani wrote about a narration of Sufyan al-Thawri:
Meaning Sufyan is a mudallis and narrated this narration from ‘Asim ibn Kalib with ‘عن‘, and according to the principles of Muhaddithin, the mudallis’s ‘an’anah’ is not accepted as will be explained later, Insha’Allah.

Abbas Rizvi said about a mu’annan narration of Sulayman al-A’mash:
In this narration, one narrator is Imam A’mash, who, though a great Imam, is a mudallis, and the mudallis’s narration with ‘عن‘ is unanimously rejected.

㊸ Ghulam Mustafa Noori Barelvi wrote about a narration of Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Uroobah (second tier according to Ibn Hajar):
But in its chain is Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Uroobah, who is trustworthy but a mudallis, and this narration is also from Qatadah with the word ‘عن‘, and when a mudallis narrates with ‘عن‘, it is not proof.

㊹ Muhammad Sharif Kotlawi Barelvi criticized a narration of Sufyan al-Thawri saying: There is suspicion of tadlis in Sufyan’s narration.

㊺ Mahmood Ahmad Rizvi Barelvi said: It is also agreed that when a mudallis narrates with ‘عن‘, the narration is not considered connected, so it is disconnected and not proof.

㊻ Husain Ahmad Madani Tandwi Deobandi criticized a narration of Imam Sufyan al-Thawri saying: And Sufyan practiced tadlis.

㊼ Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi said: If a mudallis narrator narrates with ‘عن‘, it is not proof unless he says ‘tahdith’ or has a trustworthy follower, but it is remembered that tadlis is not harmful in Sahihain; it is interpreted by other means as hearing.

㊽ Faqirullah Deobandi wrote:
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote:

حكم من ثبت عنه التدليس اذا كان عدلا ان لا يقبل منه الا ما صرح فيه بالتحديث على الاصح

When tadlis is established once from a just narrator, the ruling is that only those narrations in which he explicitly states hearing are accepted.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s stated ruling is agreed upon by all scholars of Hadith principles. Allama al-Iraqi (may Allah have mercy on him) and Allama Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated the same ruling from Muqaddimah al-Tamhid on mudallis. They wrote:

فهذا ما لا اعلم فيه ايضا خلافا

There is no disagreement among scholars of principles on this ruling to my knowledge.

㊾ A zealous Deobandi Imdadullah Anwar Taqlidi said about a narration:
In its chain is A’mash, a mudallis narrator. He narrated with ‘an’anah’ and his hearing is not proven by ruling.

㊿ Muhammad Ilyas Faisal Deobandi wrote:
In its chain is A’mash, a mudallis narrator. He narrated with ‘an’anah’ and his hearing is not proven by ruling.

From these references, it is proven that according to the majority of Muhaddithin and true scholars, the mudallis narrator’s ‘عن‘ narration (outside Sahihain) is not proof and calling it “completely contradictory to reality” is wrong. Also, this principle and methodology are proven among other sects besides Ahl al-Haq. Therefore, the denial of tadlis by Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin by introducing rare opinions of frequent and rare tadlis is false and rejected.
The names of the twenty-one (21) referenced scholars mentioned in this research article in alphabetical order are:
Ibn al-Turkumani Hanafi (30)
Ibn al-Salah (7)
Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi (27)
Ibn al-Mulqin (9)
Ibn Baz (36)
Ibn Hibban (15)
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (18)
Ibn Abd al-Barr (25)
Ibnasi (21)
Ibn Khuzaymah (23)
Ibn Kathir (10)
Abu al-Qasim Banarsi (39)
Abu Bakr al-Sayrafi (17)
Ahmad ibn Hanbal (2)
Irshad al-Haq Athari (31)
Ismail ibn Yahya al-Muzani (4)
Bukhari (22)
Bayhaqi (5)
Husayn al-Taybi (16)
Khawaja Muhammad Qasim (40)
Abu Hatim al-Razi (28)
Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi (41)
Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (3)
Imdadullah Anwar (49)
Balqini (20)
Husayn Ahmad Madani (46)
Khateeb Baghdadi (6)
Dawood Arshad (32)
Zakariya al-Ansari (13)
Sakhawi (12)
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar (47)
Shafi’i (1)
Suyuti (14)
Shu’bah (24)
Abbas Rizvi (42)
Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi (2)
Abdul Rahman Mubarakpuri (35)
Abdul Aziz Multani (38)
Al-Iraqi (11)
Faqirullah Deobandi (48)
Muhammad Ilyas Faisal (50)
Muhammad ibn Fudayl ibn Ghazwan (26)
Muhammad Yahya Gondalvi (37)
Mu’allimi (33)
Ghulam Mustafa Noori (43)
Mubashir Rabbani (34)
Muhammad ibn Amir al-San’ani (19)
Muhammad Sharif Kotlawi (44)
Mahmood Ahmad Rizvi (45)
Nawawi (8)
Yahya al-Qattan (29)
⋆ Muhammad Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

وإنما كان تفقد من تفقد منهم سماع رواة الحديث ممن روى عنهم -إذا كان الراوي ممن عرف بالتدليس فى الحديث وشهر به فحينئذ يبحثون عن سماعه فى روايته ويتفقدون ذلك منه كي تنزاح عنهم علة التدليس

Whoever has searched for the hearing (sama’) of narrators of Hadith has done so when the narrator is known and famous for tadlis, and then they look for hearing in the narration to remove the weakness of tadlis from the narrators.

In explaining this phrase, Ibn Rajab Hanbali wrote:

وهذا يحتمل أن يريد به كثرة التدليس فى حديثه ويحتمل أن يريد [به] ثبوت ذلك عنه وصحته فيكون كقول الشافعي

It is possible that it means frequent tadlis, and it is also possible that it means proof of tadlis, so it is like Imam al-Shafi’i’s statement.

It is submitted that both meanings are intended, i.e., if the narrator is frequent tadlis, his mu’annan narration (with conditions) is weak, and if tadlis is proven even once, his mu’annan narration (with conditions) is weak.
⋆ Some people have presented Imam Hamidi’s statement about mu’annan narration from Al-Kifayah

.
It is submitted that the word tadlis or its meaning is not present in this phrase; rather, it refers to mu’annan narrations of non-mudallis narrators from ‘Amr ibn Dinar from Ubayd ibn Umair.
⋆ As a joke, it is said in our area that a person was sitting on a branch of a tree and cutting it with a saw; the part he was cutting was towards the tree, and he himself was sitting on the other side. What happened? He fell down with a crash and got such a blow that he saw stars even in the daytime.
Exactly the same is the case with a person who on one hand divides tadlis into two parts (frequent and rare) under the name Manhaj al-Mutaqaddimin and accepts the mudallis’s mu’annan narrations as authentic, and on the other hand considers the mu’annan narrations of A’mash and others (whose frequent tadlis is not explicitly proven from early scholars) as weak. If this person does not fall down, will he fly in the sky?!
Finally, it is submitted that two things require thorough research in the issue of tadlis:
⟐ Whether the narrator was really a mudallis or not? If not, then it is bad tadlis, e.g., Abu Qulabah al-Jurmi and Bukhari and others, so their mu’annan narration (with conditions) is accepted.
⟐ Research on hidden and explicit mursal narrations should be done to clarify the issue.
May those who run their pen in the valleys of contradictions adopt the path of correct research and also pay attention to this.
(2/August 2010)