Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned al-A'mash in the second tier of the tiers of those who practice tadlis; even though it is now well known that he is a practitioner of tadlis.

The questioner : First, regarding al-A'mash: Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned al-A'mash in the second tier of the tiers of those who practice tadlis; even though it is now well known that he is a practitioner of tadlis. If he uses the term 'an'anah, his hearing or narration is not accepted; whereas Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned him in the tier of those whose narrations are accepted. This is the first point. The second is regarding Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki, who is praised. This is the one who refuted you in "Tanbih al-Muslim." He transmitted a great deal from the early imams of hadith, and none of them mentioned that he was a practitioner of tadlis until the era of al-Daraqutni and al-Nasa'i, who are considered later scholars relative to him. These were the first to mention that he practices tadlis. What is your opinion on this?

The Shaykh : My answer to this is based on the rules of hadith, or based on some of the rules of hadith, among which are: "He who has memorized is a proof against he who has not memorized," and "Criticism (jarh) takes precedence over vindication (ta'dil)." Tadlis is a known and clear criticism, not a vague criticism. If we combine these two rules, the argument that the early scholars did not describe so-and-so with tadlis, but only some of the later scholars, falls away. For the answer we will say: Is this criticism correct, or does it contradict reality? It contradicts those who came before; this is correct, because they did not mention tadlis in him. But some of the later imams of hadith mentioned tadlis in him—meaning in the narrator so-and-so or so-and-so; the specific identification does not matter to us now. They mentioned tadlis in him. He who has memorized is a proof against he who has not memorized, and tadlis is a defect and a detailed criticism. One should rely on this criticism, even if it came from some of the later imams of hadith.
Regarding the two individuals mentioned earlier, al-A'mash and Abu al-Zubayr: Al-A'mash was indeed described as practicing tadlis, but due to the abundance of his hadith, the authors of the two Sahihs treated his hadith with a path of reliance on his narration, even if his narration was with 'an'anah; because his tadlis, alongside the abundance of his hadith, is very little.
Nevertheless, when the scholars of hadith classify those who practice tadlis into those tiers, as you mentioned regarding Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, this is for their research and induction. But they do not mean by this that the practitioner of tadlis whom Ibn Hajar—for example—placed in the second rank does not have his tadlis sometimes become a cause of weakness in the hadith. Rather, the principle is that they overlook his tadlis, except if it appears to them that there is a problem in the hadith they narrated from the legal perspective; for example, if there is an anomaly in the text. They try to find in the chain of this hadith, which has a type of anomaly, a cause. They research with extreme precision and stop at this 'an'anah. Here they say: The 'an'anah of this chain is the tadlis of al-A'mash. So they generally overlook his tadlis, and they attribute some hadiths to his tadlis sometimes if it becomes clear to them that there is something in the text of an anomaly indicated by the general principles of the Shari'ah.
As for Abu al-Zubayr, Abu al-Zubayr narrated a great deal for Muslim from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him). He was described as practicing tadlis, except when al-Layth ibn Sa'd narrated from him, in which case it is attributed to direct hearing; because it is established among the hadith scholars that al-Layth ibn Sa'd—and he is an imam of the imams of the Muslims—was paired with Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), and some of them preferred him over him in hadith and jurisprudence. However, some of the intelligent ones said: The difference between them is that the students of Malik preserved him by caring for his hadith and his jurisprudence, whereas the students of al-Layth neglected him. Therefore, he did not become famous with the fame of Imam Malik, otherwise he is like him or he is more noble than him. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd, who is a famous Egyptian known for his nobility, jurisprudence, and knowledge, became aware of Abu al-Zubayr's tadlis long ago. Therefore, he came to him and asked him a direct question. Such a thing is rarely found in the narrators who were described with tadlis; whether those who described him with it were early or modern. We do not find this answer to this direct question being directed to him with such directness. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd said to Abu al-Zubayr: "These hadiths that you narrate from Jabir, did you hear them all from him?" He said: "No." This is from the fairness of Abu al-Zubayr, and this is what saved him from the hadith scholars dropping his integrity. So he was considered trustworthy with them. But when he clarified that some of the hadiths he narrates from Jabir he heard from him, and the rest he did not hear from him, they classified him in the group of those who practice tadlis. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd, as I said, became aware of this and asked him that question. He answered with the directness mentioned here that he did not hear all the hadiths he narrates from Jabir. He said: "Then teach me the hadiths that you heard from him." So he taught them to him. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd would then narrate from Abu al-Zubayr the hadiths he heard from Jabir. Since that is the case, the critical scholars like al-Daraqutni and others, when they find a hadith in "Sahih Muslim" from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, or even some of them from his narration from other than Jabir, they hesitate to use it as evidence; because it is established that he did not hear all of Abu al-Zubayr's hadiths.
And Muslim's inclusion of Abu al-Zubayr's hadith does not necessitate the following truth that that Egyptian aggressor overlooks. This truth is: We do not have anything that indicates to us that Abu al-Zubayr was known to Imam Muslim as a practitioner of tadlis, and yet he narrated from him. Therefore, it is not correct—in this situation—to say that Abu al-Zubayr's tadlis is not established because of Imam Muslim's narration from him from Jabir. Because we say—as we said at the beginning of this answer: "He who has memorized is a proof against he who has not memorized." Therefore, some of the later critical scholars who combined the review of the statements of the early and later scholars regarding narrators—namely Imam al-Dhahabi—said, when he biographed Abu al-Zubayr and authenticated him, and clarified that he is accused of tadlis: "There is something in my heart regarding what Imam Muslim narrates from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir." Why? Because his description with tadlis is established, and it is not a rejected criticism, but rather an accepted criticism.
This was the practice of some of the memorizers who followed the generation after Imam al-Daraqutni and his peers, in that they would declare the hadiths of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective due to tadlis. Among their leaders was 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili al-Andalusi; for he frequently declares the hadiths narrated from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective due to tadlis in his book *Al-Ahkam*. He has three books: *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, *Al-Ahkam al-Wushta*, and *Al-Ahkam al-Sughra*. The original of these three books is *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, which is a comprehensive book, one of the finest books that assists researchers and editors in verifying hadiths and tracing their chains. This is because 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, in his book *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, transmits hadiths from the books of Sunnah with their chains, including those he transmits from al-Bukhari and Muslim. He says, "Al-Bukhari," and begins thus—he does not say "Al-Bukhari narrated"—: "Al-Bukhari: It was narrated to me by so-and-so from so-and-so," and he presents the chain to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). He mentions hadiths from Muslim, Abu Dawud, and the other six books of Sunnah and other books of Sunnah that came to his attention. Thus, a student of knowledge can, for example, even in this time when the books of Sunnah have begun to be published in an excellent manner—and praise be to Allah—find in this book chains for some books that he does not find even today in the printed editions, because they have not been printed. For example, *Musnad al-Bazzar*: he transmits the hadiths he mentions in *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra* from al-Bazzar with al-Bazzar's chain. We often struggle and toil to know al-Bazzar's chain and find no trace of it except in *Kashf al-Astar*, for instance. This is specific to the additions to the six books. However, sometimes al-Bazzar may have a unique addition mentioned by some memorizers like al-Zayla'i and al-'Asqalani and their like, and they remain silent about its chain. We try to stumble upon its chain and return to *Kashf al-Astar*, but we do not find the chain for what is restricted by its condition. When we return to *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra* by al-Isbili, we benefit from its chain there. This is part of the description of *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra*.
As for *Al-Ahkam al-Sughra*, it is more beneficial for beginners in this science; because he omitted the chains and confined himself to takhrij, adding that he provides a summary of the omitted chain. This is scientific verification; because people, from ancient times until today, think that the science of hadith is to open these books and copy half a page, then fill it with what? "So-and-so narrated it, such a part, such a page." Some of them lengthen it by saying: "Such a book, such a chapter, such a part, such a page, and so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so," lines and lines, then they stop, so the researcher does not understand what the status of this chain is; is it sahih, hasan, da'if, or another of the grades of hadith?The student : There, the Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, when he omitted in his second book, *Al-Ahkam al-Wushta*, the chains of the muharrijin for the hadiths in his first book, *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, gives you the grade of the chain. He authenticates and weakens, and gives the hadith the grade it deserves, regardless of whether he hit the mark or erred? For we are all subject to correctness and error, and the important thing is what predominates in a person. There is no doubt that this Hafiz and his like have more correctness than error. This is what we must always and forever focus on, and not demand the impossible from any author, whether old or new, for this, because this is the nature of the human being whom Allah (Mighty and Majestic) created with error and forgetfulness.
As for the third book, *Al-Ahkam al-Sughra*, it is a summary of *Al-Wushta*. *Al-Wushta* contains the sahih, hasan, and da'if, whereas *Al-Sughra* contains only the sahih hadith in his critique. Therefore, I propose that if one of the students of knowledge is granted breadth in this science and activity, he should try to verify this book and publish it for the people; because it is like *Al-Ilmam fi Ahadith al-Ahkam* by Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, or *Bulugh al-Maram min Ahadith al-Ahkam* by the Hafiz al-'Asqalani. In fact, it is perhaps better than both. This is something related to tadlis concerning al-A'mash or Abu al-Zubayr.
And a final point; I said that 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili declares the hadiths that came from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective. But after him came the Hafiz Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Qattan, who is also a famous memorizer from those lands. He followed up on 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in many places where it appeared to Ibn al-Qattan that al-Isbili had erred, in his book which he named *Al-Wahm wa al-Ihram*. This book is still, unfortunately, in the realm of manuscripts. One of the students of knowledge in this land was kind enough to send me a photocopied copy when he came across the book of that arrogant, transgressing Egyptian, and found that it contradicted correct scientific critique, and found that I had hit the mark in my critique of the hadiths of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. He found a long chapter in the book of Ibn al-Qattan, so he called me on the phone and mentioned that to me, and asked my opinion: "Should I send you a copy of this book?" I said, off the cuff: "Thank you." He was kind and actually sent the book. When I looked into what was in it, it became clear to me that Ibn al-Qattan followed up on the Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in dozens of hadiths that he presented with their chains, not only from *Sunan Abu Dawud* and the Sunan below it, but also from *Sahih Muslim*. He said: "Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili remained silent about such and such a hadith and such and such a hadith, and they are from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and some of them are in *Sahih Muslim*. Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili confined himself to attributing these hadiths to Muslim, which misled the readers—here is the point—it misled the readers into thinking that they are free from critique, and he did not mention, as he did for the hadiths that 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili declared defective due to the 'an'anah of Abu al-Zubayr, that he remained silent about some of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. He said: "Muslim narrated it from Jabir," so he misled the reader into thinking that this hadith and its like are free from the defect of 'an'anah—the 'an'anah of Abu al-Zubayr. So Ibn al-Qattan, with a very broad and generous scientific spirit, placed these hadiths before the reader; so that he may be aware that these hadiths are declared defective due to the 'an'anah of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir.
And my turn came, both in the past before I looked into this book and recently. You know, if Allah wills, that there is a printed book from long ago; namely *Mukhtasar Muslim* by Imam al-Mundhiri with my commentary and verification. And I commented on many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. From here, that transgressing Egyptian entered into attacking me, even though I tried in the past and increased that recently to rescue many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir from weakness; either by tracing this hadith of Abu al-Zubayr in other sources from the books of Sunnah where the narration is explicit, so I clarified some of the hadiths that came with 'an'anah in *Sahih Muslim*, and I commented and said: "But Abu al-Zubayr made the narration explicit in *Musnad Ahmad* or in others." And now we are preparing this book for a new edition with increased verification, particularly in this aspect. So I intended to trace what Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr, and I tried to rescue what I could from the defect of 'an'anah anew; by finding an explicit statement from Abu al-Zubayr in some books, or by finding a corroborating narration or a supporting chain for it, so that the hadith then escapes the defect of 'an'anah to the validity that befits *Sahih Imam Muslim*.
This is the end of this answer.