Is it correct to say that Qatadah’s narrations from Anas and others continued to be used as evidence by the imams, whether he explicitly stated the transmission or used the term “‘an,” except for those he transmitted in a hidden manner?

The questioner : Yes, very well, my Shaykh. Two final questions.

The Shaykh : Go ahead, two questions, but just one minute.

The questioner : One minute.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Well, some people here regarding Qatadah’s tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) comment on some of your invalidations of hadiths due to Qatadah’s tadlis. He wrote in the margin: “Qatadah’s narrations from Anas and others continued to be used as evidence by the imams, whether he explicitly stated the transmission or used the term ‘‘an,’ except for those he transmitted in a hidden manner.” Is this statement acceptable from a scholarly perspective?

The Shaykh : We follow the first statement. We do not invalidate chains that contain only Qatadah’s use of “‘an” in the same way as what you quoted from the person you referred to. However, in reality, invalidating some hadiths due to Qatadah’s use of “‘an” is for one of two reasons, as far as I recall now. The first reason is similar to what occurred between you and me in a previous discussion regarding the establishment of Ibn Sirin hearing from Imran ibn Husayn in Sahih Muslim, while I invalidated the hadith by stating that he did not hear it. I said at that time that my invalidation based on Ibn Sirin not hearing from Imran was not a reliance on that point to weaken that hadith, but rather there were other defects. I mentioned this defect and stated, as I recall, that if one wishes to invalidate the hadith based on Ibn Sirin not hearing from Imran ibn Husayn, then the matter requires specific investigation. Either we prove that he did not hear it, in which case the defect remains a valid reason for invalidation, or we prove that he did hear it, in which case it is not permissible to invalidate it in that manner. This can be said regarding the invalidation of some narrations from Qatadah when there are other defects in the chain. In this case, the active researcher seeks to find another defect in that chain. But if there is nothing there except Qatadah’s use of “‘an,” that is the first reason. The second reason is that there is nothing in the text of the hadith that compels us to attempt, or rather strain to discover, a defect in the chain of this hadith, and the researcher finds nothing at that point except Qatadah’s use of “‘an.” In that case, the defect is this use of “‘an.” However, the original rule and principle is to accept Qatadah’s use of “‘an.” In fact, we do this with al-A’mash as well, because the scholars did so. But I do not know of any scholar who accepts Qatadah’s use of “‘an” and al-A’mash’s use of “‘an” consistently without exception. This is, in fact, what makes us believe that the rules of hadith are exactly like the rules of jurisprudence, where it is said, for example, that relying on general evidence is a proof, but this general evidence may be subject to specification. It was even said that there is no general rule that has not been specified. This is the point: the rules of hadith are not rigid, as many beginners in this science imagine, but rather they are general rules.
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
The student : ...

The Shaykh: How.
The student : Regarding... Abu Ishaq in the path... in the major collection.
Another student: In the path.

The Shaykh : ... can estimate...
The student : May Allah reward you with good.