When do we accept al-A'mash's 'an'anah and his tadlis?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : O Shaykh, when do we accept al-A'mash's tadlis and his 'an'anah?
The Shaykh : If nothing appears in the hadiths he narrated that would make us hesitate to accept them, meaning the default regarding his 'an'anah is that we proceed with it and do not stop at it, because this is the norm in his hadiths in the two Sahihs and in the other books of the authors of the Sahihs. They do not concern themselves with the tadlis we read in his biography, except very rarely when they lack the evidence that compels them to reveal it, because they find an anomaly in the text. They search and find no support for them except the 'an'anah. Here they say the defect may be here because he used to practice tadlis sometimes. On this basis, we have followed our predecessors, and I have not paid much attention to some of their classifications of him, such as placing him in the third rank, for example.
... either with an explicit narration or a corroborating narration that strengthens the hadith that was narrated via 'an'anah.
The questioner : Is this, O Shaykh, ... due to the greatness of al-A'mash, or because he explicitly stated that he does not narrate via 'an'anah or practice tadlis except from a trustworthy narrator?
The Shaykh : No, it is not from this angle; rather, as I told you, it is simply following the Imams.
The questioner : But do you not know why the Imams did this? I mean, is there an explicit statement from one of them, or did they follow a precedent?
The Shaykh : They say, for example, in the two Sahihs, that the hadith must be established with them in some of the chains where there is an explicit narration. In reality, I believe this is a matter of defending the two Shaykhs, for otherwise, even the most memorizing of the memorizers, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, often fails to produce a corroborating narration with an explicit narration from al-A'mash in some of the hadiths of the two Sahihs. Therefore, I am reassured by what I mentioned to you earlier.
The Shaykh : If nothing appears in the hadiths he narrated that would make us hesitate to accept them, meaning the default regarding his 'an'anah is that we proceed with it and do not stop at it, because this is the norm in his hadiths in the two Sahihs and in the other books of the authors of the Sahihs. They do not concern themselves with the tadlis we read in his biography, except very rarely when they lack the evidence that compels them to reveal it, because they find an anomaly in the text. They search and find no support for them except the 'an'anah. Here they say the defect may be here because he used to practice tadlis sometimes. On this basis, we have followed our predecessors, and I have not paid much attention to some of their classifications of him, such as placing him in the third rank, for example.
... either with an explicit narration or a corroborating narration that strengthens the hadith that was narrated via 'an'anah.
The questioner : Is this, O Shaykh, ... due to the greatness of al-A'mash, or because he explicitly stated that he does not narrate via 'an'anah or practice tadlis except from a trustworthy narrator?
The Shaykh : No, it is not from this angle; rather, as I told you, it is simply following the Imams.
The questioner : But do you not know why the Imams did this? I mean, is there an explicit statement from one of them, or did they follow a precedent?
The Shaykh : They say, for example, in the two Sahihs, that the hadith must be established with them in some of the chains where there is an explicit narration. In reality, I believe this is a matter of defending the two Shaykhs, for otherwise, even the most memorizing of the memorizers, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, often fails to produce a corroborating narration with an explicit narration from al-A'mash in some of the hadiths of the two Sahihs. Therefore, I am reassured by what I mentioned to you earlier.