Was Imām Ibn Ḥibbān Strict or Lenient in Judging Narrators?
Reference: Fatāwā Rashidiyyah, Page 545
❖ The Question
Was Imām Ibn Ḥibbān considered strict (mutashaddid) or lenient (mutasāhil) in his rulings on narrators?
❖ The Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
Imām Ibn Ḥibbān رحمه الله had a distinctive approach when it came to assessing narrators.
- In matters of authentication and praise (tawthīq, taʿdīl), he is often regarded as lenient.
- Yet, in criticism (jarḥ), there are several instances where he exercised great severity.
✔ The Classification of Mudallis Narrators
The majority of ḥadīth scholars divided mudallis narrators into levels. To understand this in detail, the renowned work of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله, Ṭabaqāt al-Mudallissīn, is essential.
✔ The Example of Sufyān al-Thawrī رحمه الله
Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله — one of the greatest authorities of ḥadīth — said regarding him:
((ما اقل تدليسه))
“His tadlīs was very little.”
Similarly, Ibn Maʿīn رحمه الله and other leading scholars accepted his narrations reported with “ʿan” (maʿnʿan). This is evident from works such as Ibn Rajab’s Sharḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmidhī.
For this reason, Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله placed Sufyān al-Thawrī in the second level in his classification of mudallissīn. Narrations of this level are accepted without explicit mention of hearing (taṣrīḥ al-samāʿ).
Thus, when the majority of leading scholars accepted his narrations, Ibn Ḥibbān’s stricter opinion cannot outweigh theirs.
✔ Internal Evidence from Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān
Having studied Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān completely, one finds that:
- Ibn Ḥibbān himself often uses narrations from third-level mudallis narrators.
- He graded these narrations as authentic even though they lacked explicit mention of hearing.
This shows that his opinion rejecting such narrations cannot be taken as binding evidence against the majority, especially when his own practice contradicts it.
✿ Conclusion
- Narrators like Sufyān al-Thawrī and others in the first or second level of tadlīs are acceptable even without explicit samāʿ.
- Objection arises only if:
① Their narration contradicts a stronger or more authentic report,
② and reconciliation is not possible.
Therefore, Imām Ibn Ḥibbān رحمه الله was sometimes lenient and sometimes strict, but his strictness in such cases cannot override the consensus and practice of the majority of ḥadīth scholars.
ھذا ما عندی، واللہ أعلم بالصواب
