Discussion of al-Hasan al-Basri’s tadlis, whether his hearing from the Companions is established, and whether al-Hasan’s narration from a Companion is considered a broken chain or tadlis.

The questioner : , O our Shaykh. In *Sahih* you mentioned regarding al-Hasan’s tadlis from the Tabi'un that it is not considered, as if he explicitly stated the narration. You also mentioned that the proof of this is that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar quoted extensively from those from whom al-Hasan did not hear, and all of them were Companions; he did not mention a single Tabi'i. The second thing you mentioned is that you do not cite any scholar who criticized al-Hasan’s narration from a Tabi'i because of his use of *'an* (from). Some people here in Egypt objected to this and said, "I quote." So, regarding the first matter, which is that al-Hafiz quoted many names of Companions from whom he did not hear, the ruling of a broken chain is more appropriate here than tadlis. Regarding the second matter, he says that the fact that no scholar is active in criticizing a hadith due to al-Hasan’s *'an* from the Tabi'un does not mean it is not found. He says, "We apply the rule that if al-Hasan did not commit tadlis when narrating from a Tabi'i, and he narrates from a Companion, and he narrates from something, we rule that it is al-Hasan’s tadlis." What do you say regarding this statement?

The Shaykh : We say that if the generalization of tadlis is a general accusation, as this person you are referring to says, but I do not know this from him, especially in applying this rule. In their *takhrij* of hadiths, I do not find them criticizing a hadith in which al-Hasan narrates from a Tabi'i by saying, "This hadith is weak because al-Hasan is a *mudallis* (one who commits tadlis)." Is my answer clear in this issue?

The questioner : It requires some...

The Shaykh : I say I do not know, because the scholars of hadith accused or described al-Hasan al-Basri with tadlis as a general description, whether he narrated from a Companion or the Companions, or from the Tabi'un. I do not know this, nor do I know of it. Therefore, I stop at criticizing hadiths from al-Hasan al-Basri from the Companions and do not go beyond this circle to criticizing other hadiths that al-Hasan narrates from some of the Tabi'un to his peers from the Companions. This is from one aspect. From another aspect, you will find in *al-Sahihayn* or in one of them, let alone the other *Sahih* collections, that they narrate from al-Hasan from so-and-so of the Tabi'un from 'Umar.

The questioner : From Abu Rafi', for example.

The Shaykh : So I understand from the practical side that they use al-Hasan al-Basri’s *'an* from the Tabi'un as evidence, which confirms my previous view or my previous knowledge that I do not know that they accused him of tadlis in a general way, whether he narrated from the Companions or from the Tabi'un. Perhaps I have clarified this picture.

The questioner : Yes, it is clear.

The Shaykh : There remains another issue, which I mentioned from the one you referred to, because we should criticize the narration from al-Hasan al-Basri from the Companions as a broken chain.

The questioner : He says, as long as he did not hear from them, the ruling of a broken chain is more apparent than the ruling of tadlis.

The Shaykh : How is that?

The questioner : For example...

The Shaykh : Excuse me, I say, how is that? What is the difference then between any trustworthy narrator who is not known for tadlis and narrates from a Companion from whom he did not hear, and one who is known for tadlis? What is the difference then between this and that?

The questioner : His argument is that, for example, if it is established that al-Hasan did not hear from 'Umar, then if a hadith comes from al-Hasan from 'Umar, I note here a broken chain and do not say he committed tadlis, or that he used *'an*.

The Shaykh : This falls under what is called *mursal jali* (openly disconnected) and *mursal khafi* (hiddenly disconnected). But may Allah reward you, I directed a question and did not receive an answer to it: What is the difference between one who is known for tadlis from some of the Companions and one who is not known for tadlis but narrates from some of the Companions? It appears to us that this is a broken chain.

The questioner : There is no difference.

The Shaykh : Whereas there is a difference between one who is accused of tadlis and one who is not accused of tadlis. Therefore, equating two matters is not valid. It can be said in the previous example I mentioned, and this is actually very important regarding al-Hasan al-Basri’s narration from 'Umar. There is a difference between a broken chain that is open and known, even from al-Hasan al-Basri here, where no one criticizes it with *'an*. Why? Because it is clear that al-Hasan did not live to see 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. But if a hadith comes from al-Hasan from Samurah, for example, is it criticized as a broken chain or as tadlis? Therefore, perhaps you remember that I said in many of al-Hasan al-Basri’s hadiths from Samurah, commenting on the criticism of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar and others, that there is a disagreement regarding al-Hasan’s hearing from Samurah. I say, if al-Hasan’s hearing from Samurah is established, this does not mean the hadith is free from a defect, because al-Hasan al-Basri is known for tadlis. So, regarding al-Hasan al-Basri’s narration from the Companions, we can say there are three states:
Either he narrates from someone from whom he heard in general, or he narrates from someone from whom we do not know that he heard, but it is possible that he heard from him, or we know that it is impossible for him to have heard from him. This last state, like the previous example of al-Hasan from 'Umar, is a broken chain.

The questioner : Openly.

The Shaykh : Yes, in the first two states, he must explicitly state the hearing, otherwise the hadith is criticized with al-Hasan al-Basri’s *'an*.