The ruling on the narration of the origin of Hadith and the chain of the narrator who is a fabricator (Muddallis)

It is a famous and well-known principle of Hadith that the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis narrator (i.e., one whose mudallas status is established) is not acceptable as evidence, meaning it is weak.
In this regard, forty (40) references with evidence from the great muhaddithin, scholars of Hadith, and other scholars are presented:
① Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him (died 204 AH), 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 unless he says ‘hadathani’ or ‘sami’tu’ i.e., explicitly states hearing.

Kitab al-Risalah is among the ancient and grand books of Usul al-Fiqh, Usul al-Hadith, and even Usul al-Din, and many scholars have written commentaries on it.
② Imam Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi, may Allah have mercy on him (died 198 AH), favored Kitab al-Risalah.
See al-Tayuriyyat

It is established that according to Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi, the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis is not acceptable.
③ Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him (died 241 AH), was pleased with Kitab al-Risalah. See Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil

He said it is among his best books.

④ Imam Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, may Allah have mercy on him (died 238 AH), also agreed with Kitab al-Risalah.
See paragraph 3, and “Imam Shafi’i and the issue of tadlis.”
⑤ Imam Ismail ibn Yahya al-Muzani, may Allah have mercy on him (died 264 AH), also supported Kitab al-Risalah.

⑥ The famous muhaddith Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him (died 458 AH), quoted Imam Shafi’i’s mentioned statement (paragraph 1) and confirmed it by silence.
See Ma’rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar

and al-Nukat by al-Zarkashi

⑦ Imam Muslim, the author of Sahih Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him (died 261 AH), said:

و إنما كان تفقد من تفقد منهم سماع رواة الحديث ممن روى عنهم – إذا كان الراوي ممن عرف بالتدليس فى الحديث و شهر به فحينئذ يبحثون عن سماعه فى روايته و يتفقدون ذلك منه، كي تنزاح عنهم علة التدليس

Whoever has sought the hearing (sama’) of narrators of Hadith has done so when the narrator is known to be a mudallis and it is well-known about him; then at that time, the narration is examined for his hearing and sought so that the weakness of tadlis among narrators is removed.

In explaining this statement, Ibn Rajab Hanbali wrote:

و هذا يحتمل أن يريد به كثرة التدليس فى حديثه ويحتمل أن يريد [به] ثبوت ذلك عنه و صحته فيكون كقول الشافعي

And it is possible that by this is meant the abundance of tadlis in the Hadith, and it is also possible that it means the proof of tadlis; thus, it is like the statement of Shafi’i.

It is submitted that both meanings are intended: if the narrator is a frequent mudallis, then his ‘An’ narration (with its conditions) is weak; and if tadlis is proven even once, then his ‘An’ narration (with its conditions) is weak.
It is established that according to Imam Muslim, the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis is not evidence.
⑧ Khateeb Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him (died 463 AH), said:

و قال آخرون: خبر المدلس لا يقبل إلا أن يورده على وجه مبين غير محتمل لإيهام فإن أورده على ذلك قبل، و هذا هو الصحيح عندنا.

And others said: The report of a mudallis is not accepted except if he explicitly states with certainty and without doubt that he heard (sama’) from the source; if he does so, then his narration is accepted, and this is the correct view according to us.

Al-Kifayah is among the famous and authentic books of Usul al-Hadith.
⑨ Hafiz Ibn Hibban al-Busti, may Allah have mercy on him (died 354 AH), said:

فما لم يقل المدلس و إن كان ثقة: حدثني أو سمعت فلا يجوز الإحتجاج بخبره، و هذا أصل أبى عبد الله محمد بن إدريس الشافعي – رحمه الله و من تبعه من شيوخنا.

So as long as the mudallis, even if trustworthy, does not say ‘hadathani’ or ‘sami’tu’ (i.e., does not explicitly state hearing), it is not permissible to take his narration as evidence, and this is the fundamental principle of Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i, and the principle of our teachers who followed him.

Also see Sahih Ibn Hibban

Hafiz Ibn Hibban further said:

فإن المدلس ما لم يبين سماع خبره عمن كتب عنه لا يجوز الإحتجاج بذلك الخبر، لأنه لا يدرى لعله سمعه من إنسان ضعيف يبطل الخبر بذكره إذا وقف عليه و عرف الخبر به فما لم يقل المدلس فى خبره و إن كان ثقة: سمعت أو حدثني، فلا يجوز الإحتجاج بخبره

So as long as the mudallis does not explicitly state hearing from his teacher, it is not permissible to take his narration as evidence, because it is unknown whether he heard from a weak person, which if known would invalidate the report. So even if the mudallis is trustworthy, if he does not say ‘sami’tu’ or ‘hadathani’ in his narration, it is not permissible to take his narration as evidence.

⑩ Hafiz Ibn al-Salah al-Shahrazuri al-Shafi’i (died 643 AH) said:

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

And the ruling is that the narration of a mudallis is not accepted without explicit statement of hearing; Shafi’i, may Allah be pleased with him, issued this ruling regarding a person who, according to our knowledge, committed tadlis only once. And Allah knows best.

Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah or ‘Ulum al-Hadith (Ma’rifat Anwa’ ‘Ilm al-Hadith) is a famous and well-known book of Usul al-Hadith and is widely accepted. For example, see Irshad Talib al-Haqa’iq by al-Nawawi

, al-Muntasal al-Rawi by Ibn Jama’ah

, Ikhtisar ‘Ulum al-Hadith by Ibn Kathir

, and Intiqad wa al-Idhah

, Nuzhat al-Nazar by Ibn Hajar

, and al-Bahr al-Dhakhar by al-Suyuti

, etc.
⑪ Allama Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (died 677 AH) said:

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

So if he (the mudallis narrator) narrates with words that have ambiguity and no explicit statement of hearing, then he is considered mursal… and this ruling applies to one who commits tadlis once.

Regarding mursal, Nawawi said:

ثم المرسل حديث ضعيف عند جماهير المحدثين…

Then (that) mursal is a weak Hadith according to the majority of muhaddithin…

⑫ Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr (died 463 AH) said:

وكذلك من عرف بالتدليس المجتمع عليه و كان من المسامحين فى الأخذ عن كل أحد، لم يحتج بشيء مما رواه حتى يقول: أخبرنا أو سمعت

Similarly, a person who is known to be a mudallis by consensus (that he commits tadlis) and is among those lenient ones who narrate from everyone, none of his narrations are accepted as evidence unless he says ‘akhbarana’ or ‘sami’tu’ i.e., explicitly states hearing.

This proves that according to Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr, the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis from a weak narrator without explicit statement of hearing is not evidence, i.e., it is weak.
To our knowledge, among all established mudallis narrators, there is not a single mudallis who did not narrate from weak narrators.
Note: The claim of Hafiz Ibn Hibban and others that Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah only committed tadlis from trustworthy narrators is incorrect for several reasons. For example:
➊ This rule is not absolute; sometimes Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, may Allah have mercy on him, committed tadlis from non-trustworthy narrators.
➋ Among the trustworthy narrators from whom Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah committed tadlis, some were themselves mudallis, and there is no evidence that he only committed tadlis from trustworthy narrators; hence, there is suspicion of tadlis upon tadlis here.
➌ Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah also narrated from weak narrators; for example, among his teachers is ‘Ali ibn Zayd ibn Jud’an (a weak narrator).
Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr further said: إلا أن يكون الرجل معروفا بالتدليس فلا يقبل حديثه حتى يقول: حدثنا أو سمعت، فهذا لا أعلم فيه أيضا خلافا.
Except that if a person is known to be a mudallis, his Hadith is not accepted unless he says ‘hadathana’ or ‘sami’tu’ (i.e., explicitly states hearing); I know of no disagreement on this.

Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr stated three conditions for the acceptance of ‘An’ narration, on which there is consensus:
◈ All narrators must be just (Adil), i.e., trustworthy and precise.
◈ Each narrator’s meeting with his teacher must be established.
◈ All narrators must be free from tadlis.

⑬ Abu Bakr al-Sayrafi (died 330 AH) said in his commentary on Kitab al-Dala’il wa al-I’lam on Kitab al-Risalah of al-Shafi’i: كل من ظهر تدليسه عن غير الثقات لم يقبل خبره حتى يقول: حدثني أو سمعت.
Anyone whose tadlis from non-trustworthy narrators becomes apparent, his narration is not accepted unless he says ‘hadathani’ or ‘sami’tu’ i.e., explicitly states hearing.

Also see Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, and the issue of tadlis

⑭ Hafiz al-Dhahabi said about ‘An’ narration (which contains ‘an an’):

ثم بتقدير تيقن اللقاء يشترط أن لا يكون الراوي عن شيخه مدلسا فإن لم يكن حملناه على الاتصال. فإن كان مدلسا فالأظهر أنه لا يحمل على السماع. ثم إن كان المدلس عن شيخه ذا تدليس عن الثقات فلا بأس وإن كان ذا تدليس عن الضعفاء فمردود

Then if certainty of meeting is established, the condition is that the narrator is not a mudallis from his teacher; if he is not, then we consider it (the ‘An’ narration) as continuous (ittisal). But if he is a mudallis, then it is apparent that it is not based on hearing. Then if the mudallis narrated from trustworthy narrators, there is no harm; but if he narrated from weak narrators, then (his ‘An’ narration) is rejected.

Here, as a benefit, it is stated that the example of those who commit tadlis from trustworthy narrators (in the world of tadlis) is only Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, and his ‘An’ narration is weak for two reasons, as explained in paragraph 12.
From the above statement of Hafiz al-Dhahabi, it is clear that according to him, except for Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, all mudallis narrators such as Sufyan al-Thawri and Sulayman al-A’mash, etc., their ‘An’ narrations (with their conditions) are weak and rejected.
⑮ Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said:

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 proven from a narrator, even if he is just (trustworthy), only those narrations in which he explicitly states hearing are accepted.

⑯ Imam al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, while commenting on a narration, said:

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 al-Bukhari, the mudallis not explicitly stating hearing contradicts the authenticity of the Hadith.
⑰ Imam Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him (died 120 AH), said about his mudallis teacher Qatadah, may Allah have mercy on him: 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.

This shows that Imam Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, also did not consider the narration of a mudallis without explicit hearing as evidence. Also see my book ‘Ilmi Maqalat’

⑱ Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, may Allah have mercy on him (died 311 AH), criticized a narration and declared it weak, saying:
The other point is that al-A’mash is a mudallis and he did not mention his hearing from Habib ibn Abi Thabit. Etc.

This proves that Imam Ibn Khuzaymah also considered the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis as weak.
⑲ Hafiz Ibn al-Mulaqqin (died 804 AH) upheld the ruling of Hafiz Ibn al-Salah regarding tadlis and did not oppose it.
See al-Mufta’ fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith

and paragraph 10.
⑳ Hafiz Ibn Kathir (died 774 AH) quoted Imam Shafi’i’s statement about tadlis and did not oppose it. See Ikhtisar ‘Ulum al-Hadith

㉑ Hafiz al-Iraqi (died 806 AH) mentioned Ibn al-Salah’s statement: مالم يبين فيه المدلس الاتصال حكمه حكم المرسل and did not refute it.
See al-Taqid wa al-Idhah

And al-Iraqi said:

و صححوا وصل معنعن سلم، من دلسة راويه واللقا علم

And they (the muhaddithin) considered the ‘An’ narration to be muttasil sahih (connected and authentic) which is free from tadlis (an) and the meeting of teacher and student is established.

Al-Iraqi further said:

والأكثرون قبلوا ما صرحا، ثقاتهم وصححا

And the majority have accepted the narrations of trustworthy mudallis narrators in which they explicitly state hearing, and both Khateeb and Ibn al-Salah have accepted this view.

㉒ Sharif Jurjani, i.e., Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ali al-Husayni (died 816 AH), said about the mudallis narrator:

والأصح التفصيل: فما رواه بلفظ محتمل لم يبن فيه السماع فحكمه حكم المرسل و أنواعه

And the correct view is that there is detail in this: if he narrates with words in which hearing is not clear and there is ambiguity, then his ruling is like mursal and its types.

Mursal narration is weak as decided by Imam Muslim, Imam Tirmidhi, and the majority of muhaddithin. Jurjani said about ‘An’ narration:

والصحيح أنه متصل إذا أمكن اللقاء مع البراءة عن التدليس

And the correct view is that it is connected, provided that meeting is possible and the narrator is free from tadlis.

㉓ Badr al-Din Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Jama’ah (died 733 AH) said about ‘An’ narration:

والصحيح الذى عليه جماهير العلماء والمحدثين والفقهاء والأصوليين أنه متصل إذا أمكن لقاؤهما مع براءتهما من التدليس

And the correct view, on which the majority of scholars, muhaddithin, jurists, and experts in Usul agree, is that it is connected provided that meeting is possible and both teacher and student are free from tadlis.

This proves that Qadi Ibn Jama’ah considered the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis as contradictory to the authenticity of Hadith.
㉔ Husayn ibn Abdullah al-Taybi (died 743 AH) recorded Imam Shafi’i’s principle in his treatise on Usul al-Hadith and did not contradict it; thus, he agreed with Imam Shafi’i on this issue. See al-Khalasah fi Usul al-Hadith

㉕ Al-Suyuti said about ‘An’ narration:

ومن روى بعن وأن فاحكم ، بوصله إن اللقاء يعلم ،ولم يكن مدلسا

And whoever narrates with ‘an’ and ‘inna’ then judge it as connected provided that meeting is established and he is not a mudallis…

Al-Suyuti said about mudallis:

والمرتضى قبولهم إن صرحوا بالوصل فالأكثر هذا صححوا

And if they explicitly state hearing, then their narration is accepted; the majority have considered it authentic.

㉖ Umar ibn Ruslan al-Balqini (died 805 AH) quoted Imam Shafi’i’s statement about tadlis in his commentary on Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah and did not oppose it; thus, this is his agreement with the mentioned principle. See Mahasin al-Istilah

㉗ Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Ayyub al-Abnasi (died 802 AH) also quoted Imam Shafi’i’s mentioned principle and did not oppose it; thus, this is his endorsement of the principle. See al-Shadhi al-Fayyah

㉘ Al-‘Ayni said: And the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis is not evidence unless its explicit statement of hearing is proven from another chain.

And he said: وقد اتفقوا على أن المدلس إذا قال: عن، لا يحتج به إلا أن يثبت من طريق آخر أنه سمع ذلك الحديث من ذلك الشخص
And they agree that when a mudallis says ‘an,’ it is not evidence unless it is proven from another chain that he heard the Hadith from his teacher.

㉙ Karmani said: And the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis is not evidence unless the explicit statement of hearing is proven from another chain.

㉚ Qastalani said: And the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis is not acceptable unless the explicit statement of hearing is proven.

㉛ Al-Sibt ibn al-‘Ajmi said:

والصحيح التفصيل … و إن أتى بلفظ يحتمل فحكمه حكم المرسل

And the correct view is that there is detail in this… and if he (mudallis) narrates with words that have ambiguity, then his ruling is like mursal.

Meaning the narration of a mudallis without explicit statement of hearing is like mursal (disconnected). Note that according to the majority of muhaddithin, mursal narration is weak and rejected due to discontinuity.
㉜ Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi said: و معنعن الأعمش عرضة لتبين الإنقطاع فإنه مدلس
And the ‘An’ narration of al-A’mash is a target and indication of discontinuity because he is a mudallis.

It is understood that Ibn al-Qattan considered the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis as disconnected.
㉝ Muhammad ibn Fudayl ibn Ghazwan (died 195 AH) said: Mughirah (ibn Muqsim) committed tadlis, so we only wrote from him those narrations in which he said ‘hadathana Ibrahim.’

It is understood that Muhammad ibn Fudayl also considered the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis without explicit statement of hearing as weak and rejected.
㉞ Ibn Rashid al-Fahri (died 721 AH) said:

أما من عرف بالتدليس فمعرفته بذلك كافية فى التوقف فى حديثه حتى يتبين الأمر.

But if he is known to be a mudallis, this is sufficient to pause on his Hadith unless the matter becomes clear, i.e., explicit statement of hearing is proven.

㉟ Imam Ya’qub ibn Shaybah, may Allah have mercy on him (died 262 AH), said:

فأما من دلس عن غير ثقة و عمن لم يسمع هو منه فقد جاوز حد التدليس الذى رخص فيه من رخص من العلماء

So whoever commits tadlis from a non-trustworthy narrator and from whom he did not hear, then he has exceeded the limits of tadlis which the scholars permitted.

It is understood that according to Ya’qub ibn Shaybah, the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis and similarly the hidden mursal are weak and not accepted.
㊱ Sakhawi, in explaining al-Iraqi’s statement أثبته بمرة, said:

و بيان ذلك أنه بثبوت تدليسه مرة صار ذلك هو الظاهر من حاله فى معنعناته كما إنه ثبوت اللقاء مرة صار الظاهر من حاله السماع، و كذا من عرف بالكذب فى حديث واحد صار الكذب هو الظاهر من حاله و سقط العمل بجميع حديثه مع جواز كونه صادقا فى بعضه

And its explanation is that the proof of tadlis even once makes all his ‘An’ narrations appear as if he is a mudallis, just as proof of meeting once makes the apparent state of a non-mudallis that he heard from his teacher, and similarly if a person is known to lie in only one Hadith, his apparent state becomes that he is a liar and all his Hadith become invalid, with the allowance that he may be truthful in some narrations.

By presenting two important evidences, Sakhawi confirmed Imam Shafi’i and joined those who do not accept the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis, even if he committed tadlis only once in his lifetime.
㊲ Abdul Ra’uf al-Manawi (Sufi) said:

و عنعنة المعاصر محمولة على السماع عند المتقدمين كمسلم و ادعي فيه الإجماع و بخلاف غير المعاصر فإنها تكون مرسلة أو منقطعة و شرط حملها على السماع ثبوت المعاصرة إلا من المدلس فإنها غير محمولة على السماع.

According to the predecessors, for example Imam Muslim, the contemporary ‘An’ narration is considered as based on hearing, and he claimed consensus on this; contrary to this, the non-contemporary narration is mursal or disconnected, and the condition to consider it based on hearing is proof of contemporaneity, except for the mudallis whose ‘An’ narration is not considered based on hearing.

㊳ Zakariya al-Ansari (died 926 AH) quoted al-Iraqi’s statement والشافعي أثبته بمرة and did not oppose it.
See Fath al-Baqi bi Sharh Alfiya al-Iraqi

㊴ Imam Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan said:
I only wrote from Sufyan (al-Thawri) what he said ‘hadathani’ or ‘hadathana’…

㊵ Ibn al-Turkumani (Hanafi) criticized a narration saying:
It has three causes (reasons for weakness): al-Thawri is a mudallis and he narrated this narration with ‘an’…

From the principles of Hadith, commentaries on Hadith, great muhaddithin, and other scholars’ statements mentioned above, it is established that the ‘An’ narration of a mudallis narrator is weak and rejected.
Just as in some principles and rules, after establishing exceptions, the general ruling continues on the general and the specific is excluded from the general, similarly some exceptions are established for this principle, which are as follows:
● In Sahihayn (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), all narrations of all mudallis narrators are based on hearing or reliable follow-ups and evidence.
● If the mudallis’s reliable follow-up or strong witness is established, the objection of tadlis is removed, just as if a weak narrator’s narration has a reliable follower or strong witness, the weakness is removed.
● Some narrations of some mudallis narrators in some students’ narrations (as proven by evidence) are based on hearing, e.g., Shu’bah’s narrations from Qatadah, al-A’mash, and Abu Ishaq al-Subayi’i; Shafi’i’s narration from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah; and Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan’s narration from Sufyan al-Thawri are based on hearing.
● Some mudallis narrators did not commit tadlis from some teachers, e.g., Ibn Jurayj did not commit tadlis from ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah and Hashim Husayn; thus, such ‘An’ narrations are also based on hearing.
● Similarly, if any other matter is proven by evidence, it is also acceptable.
Apart from these, the ‘An’ narrations of established mudallis narrators (with their conditions) are weak.
Examples of giving precedence to the specific over the general and some exceptions are as follows:
● Some narrators are trustworthy, but when they narrate from some specific teachers, the narration is weak, e.g., Sufyan ibn Husayn is trustworthy but his narration from Imam Zahri is weak.
● Some narrators are weak, but when they narrate from some specific teachers, the narration is good (explicitly proven by muhaddithin), e.g., Abdullah ibn Umar al-Umari is weak, but his narration from Nafi’ is good.
● Some narrators’ narrations are weak due to their mixing, but for some students, it is explicitly stated that they heard Hadith before their teacher’s mixing; thus, these narrations are authentic, e.g., ‘Ata ibn al-Sa’ib’s narration from Imam Shu’bah is authentic.
● Mursal narration is weak, but all mursal narrations of the Companions are authentic, and there is consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah on this.
● Weak narration becomes authentic or good with authentic and good evidence and follow-ups.
Just as in Usul al-Hadith and Asma’ al-Rijal, these exceptions are applied and general evidence is not preferred over specific evidence, similarly in the issue of tadlis, these established exceptions are applied and general evidence is not preferred over specific evidence.
Note: It is not proven by any evidence that the ‘An’ narrations of al-A’mash and Sufyan al-Thawri, etc., are authentic and the narrations of Abu al-Zubayr al-Hasan al-Basri and Zahri, etc., are weak.
In this regard, Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani’s classification is incorrect for several reasons. For example:
➊ This classification contradicts the principles of tadlis of the majority of muhaddithin.
➋ This classification contradicts Ibn Hajar’s own principle in Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikr.
➌ This classification contradicts Ibn Hajar’s own al-Talkhis al-Habir

.
➍ Ahl al-Hadith, Hanafi, and even Barelvi and Deobandi do not agree on this classification.
The names mentioned in this article in order are:
◈ Ibn al-Turkumani (40)
◈ Ibn al-Salah (10)
◈ Ibn al-‘Ajmi (31)
◈ Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi (32)
◈ Ibn al-Mulaqqin (19)
◈ Ibn Jama’ah (23)
◈ Ibn Hibban (9)
◈ Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (15)
◈ Ibn Khuzaymah (18)
◈ Ibn Rashid al-Fahri (34)
◈ Ibn Abd al-Barr (12)
◈ Ibn Kathir (20)
◈ Al-Abnasi (27)
◈ Abu Bakr al-Sayrafi (13)
◈ Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3)
◈ Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (4)
◈ Ismail ibn Yahya al-Muzani (5)
◈ al-Bukhari (16)
◈ al-Balqini (26)
◈ al-Bayhaqi (6)
◈ Khateeb Baghdadi (8)
◈ al-Dhahabi (14)
◈ Zakariya al-Ansari (38)
◈ Sakhawi (36)
◈ al-Suyuti (25)
◈ al-Shafi’i (1)
◈ Sharif Jurjani (22)
◈ Shu’bah (17)
◈ al-Taybi (24)
◈ Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi (2)
◈ al-Iraqi (21)
◈ al-‘Ayni (28)
◈ Qastalani (30)
◈ Karmani (29)
◈ Muhammad ibn Fudayl ibn Ghazwan (33)
◈ Muslim (7)
◈ al-Manawi (37)
◈ al-Nawawi (11)
◈ Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan (39)
◈ Ya’qub ibn Shaybah (35)
(30/August/2010)