What is the ruling on the hadiths that the two Shaykhs included for narrators accused of tadlis, such as al-Muqaddami?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Al-Muqaddami was accused by Ibn Sa'd of tadlis al-qat'.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Knowing that al-Bukhari and Muslim included his narrations in their Sahihs, he says: "He narrated to us," intending to break the chain. Is his entire narration rejected, knowing that Ibn Sa'd was unique in accusing him of this specific issue?
The Shaykh : The answer to this is like the answer regarding the inclusion by the two Shaykhs of many trustworthy narrators who were described as engaging in tadlis. It is not necessary for any of us to assume that the two Shaykhs included narrations from these accused tadelis while believing in their tadlis. The matter may be the opposite; that is, the tadelis accused of tadlis by someone other than al-Bukhari and Muslim may be considered so by them as well, but they included his narration for a reason or another mentioned in the science of terminology. For example, the Imam may have encountered a narration where the tadelis explicitly stated "he narrated to us" in a chain other than the one in the Sahih, but he preferred the one in the Sahih because the condition he committed to in what he included in his Sahih was not met in the narration where the tadelis explicitly stated "he narrated to us." It may be so. And it may be the other matter, which is important in our topic and in our answer to your question:
The tadelis may be considered a tadelis by someone other than al-Bukhari and Muslim. The least that can be said about someone like al-Muqaddami is that al-Bukhari and Muslim’s minds were free from the accusation of tadlis al-sukut against this trustworthy narrator. So they narrated from him as long as he said "he narrated to us," and this is proof by consensus. Therefore, the statements of those who disagree with al-Bukhari are not rejected against him. All that can be said is: Is the practice of the two Shaykhs and their inclusion of such a tadelis preferred, or is the statement of the one who accused the narrator of tadlis preferred, whatever type of tadlis it is?
Once that is known, in every issue where Imam al-Bukhari is contradicted, it should not be said: "How did he narrate from so-and-so, when so-and-so and so-and-so spoke about him?"
Because the answer is: If al-Bukhari had heard such a statement that affected the trustworthiness of the narrator from whom he narrated, he would not have done so, and so on. Therefore, we should not stop at such statements, because such statements exist regarding many narrators in the two Sahihs and others. Rather, the student of knowledge, if he has reached a level that enables him to prefer one statement over another, should prefer what al-Bukhari did or what others contradicted him on. This is the answer regarding this question.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Knowing that al-Bukhari and Muslim included his narrations in their Sahihs, he says: "He narrated to us," intending to break the chain. Is his entire narration rejected, knowing that Ibn Sa'd was unique in accusing him of this specific issue?
The Shaykh : The answer to this is like the answer regarding the inclusion by the two Shaykhs of many trustworthy narrators who were described as engaging in tadlis. It is not necessary for any of us to assume that the two Shaykhs included narrations from these accused tadelis while believing in their tadlis. The matter may be the opposite; that is, the tadelis accused of tadlis by someone other than al-Bukhari and Muslim may be considered so by them as well, but they included his narration for a reason or another mentioned in the science of terminology. For example, the Imam may have encountered a narration where the tadelis explicitly stated "he narrated to us" in a chain other than the one in the Sahih, but he preferred the one in the Sahih because the condition he committed to in what he included in his Sahih was not met in the narration where the tadelis explicitly stated "he narrated to us." It may be so. And it may be the other matter, which is important in our topic and in our answer to your question:
The tadelis may be considered a tadelis by someone other than al-Bukhari and Muslim. The least that can be said about someone like al-Muqaddami is that al-Bukhari and Muslim’s minds were free from the accusation of tadlis al-sukut against this trustworthy narrator. So they narrated from him as long as he said "he narrated to us," and this is proof by consensus. Therefore, the statements of those who disagree with al-Bukhari are not rejected against him. All that can be said is: Is the practice of the two Shaykhs and their inclusion of such a tadelis preferred, or is the statement of the one who accused the narrator of tadlis preferred, whatever type of tadlis it is?
Once that is known, in every issue where Imam al-Bukhari is contradicted, it should not be said: "How did he narrate from so-and-so, when so-and-so and so-and-so spoke about him?"
Because the answer is: If al-Bukhari had heard such a statement that affected the trustworthiness of the narrator from whom he narrated, he would not have done so, and so on. Therefore, we should not stop at such statements, because such statements exist regarding many narrators in the two Sahihs and others. Rather, the student of knowledge, if he has reached a level that enables him to prefer one statement over another, should prefer what al-Bukhari did or what others contradicted him on. This is the answer regarding this question.