An example of a hadith in which al-Walid ibn Muslim practiced tadlis al-taswiyyah (concealment of a defect in a chain by leveling the chain).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In the hadith regarding the prayer... the hadith of 'Ali.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : It is via the route of al-Walid ibn Muslim, who said: "Al-Awza'i narrated to us, as I recall." So al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, in *al-Talkhis*, says: "And this is invalid." Do we infer from al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi's action that he is applying the rule and saying this is invalid, even though they are all trustworthy? I mean, the chain of narration is clean; by Allah, the quality of its chain confounded me, and the meaning is denounced or something similar, and he ruled it invalid. Do we infer that al-Hafiz ruled it invalid because he did not mention the narration from his shaykh's shaykh or something like that?
The Shaykh : I do not believe that is the case. Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi has this kind of generalization regarding many narrators. I pointed to something like this earlier when I said that they say regarding a weak hadith that its chain is invalid, because they observe a meaning that stands out in the text of this hadith. Sometimes, and this is more precise, they observe things related to the narration of this narrator, such as this weakened person narrating a hadith from a famous shaykh that the other students and companions of this imam do not narrate. By observing such indications, it becomes clear to the researcher that this text is invalid. But if we look only at the fact that this was narrated by a weak man, the chain is weak and the hadith is weak. It remains a delusion to say that this hadith is invalid. But al-Hafiz's view is more precise and comprehensive than the view of ordinary people, I mean. So here, in my opinion, regarding the hadith about memorizing the Qur'an, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, in *Talkhis al-Mustadrak*, looked at the meaning contained in it, not just at its chain. Yes, please proceed.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : It is via the route of al-Walid ibn Muslim, who said: "Al-Awza'i narrated to us, as I recall." So al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, in *al-Talkhis*, says: "And this is invalid." Do we infer from al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi's action that he is applying the rule and saying this is invalid, even though they are all trustworthy? I mean, the chain of narration is clean; by Allah, the quality of its chain confounded me, and the meaning is denounced or something similar, and he ruled it invalid. Do we infer that al-Hafiz ruled it invalid because he did not mention the narration from his shaykh's shaykh or something like that?
The Shaykh : I do not believe that is the case. Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi has this kind of generalization regarding many narrators. I pointed to something like this earlier when I said that they say regarding a weak hadith that its chain is invalid, because they observe a meaning that stands out in the text of this hadith. Sometimes, and this is more precise, they observe things related to the narration of this narrator, such as this weakened person narrating a hadith from a famous shaykh that the other students and companions of this imam do not narrate. By observing such indications, it becomes clear to the researcher that this text is invalid. But if we look only at the fact that this was narrated by a weak man, the chain is weak and the hadith is weak. It remains a delusion to say that this hadith is invalid. But al-Hafiz's view is more precise and comprehensive than the view of ordinary people, I mean. So here, in my opinion, regarding the hadith about memorizing the Qur'an, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, in *Talkhis al-Mustadrak*, looked at the meaning contained in it, not just at its chain. Yes, please proceed.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.