When is the *'an'anah* of al-A'mash and Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki accepted?

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Regarding the defects you mentioned...

The Shaykh : Raise your voice.

The questioner : You mentioned the defects that invalidate the hadith, namely that al-A'mash was a *mudallis*.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Very well, Shaykh, how are al-A'mash's narrations handled outside of the two Sahihs?

The Shaykh : The defect I am mentioning now is from a man who is a *mudallis*, and that is Habib ibn Abi Thabit. I do not recall right now if this chain also contains al-A'mash's *'an'anah*. Are you certain of that?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, and is the narration from al-A'mash from Habib?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Both of them are *mudallis*. Our answer to your second question is that al-A'mash's narration via *'an'anah*, if it appears in the two Sahihs, is accepted based on the ijtihad of the authors of the two Sahihs, their trust in their knowledge, and their following of the hadith narrations. However, if al-A'mash's narration appears outside the two Sahihs, then his narration is subject to research, examination, acceptance, or rejection. This depends on studying the hadith that al-A'mash narrated via *'an'anah* in light of the supporting evidence surrounding this *'an'anah* to either refute this *'an'anah* or accept it. In that case, there is no consistent rule, as is the principle for the hadith of a *mudallis* who is established as frequently practicing *tadlis*. Regarding al-A'mash, we do not have a controlling rule that says his *'an'anah* is always accepted or always rejected. The example before us now is this hadith, as you heard earlier, which contradicts two other hadiths: one is agreed upon as authentic, and the other is unique to Imam al-Bukhari. Here, the researcher is compelled to stop at al-A'mash's *'an'anah* or Habib ibn Abi Thabit's and say, "Perhaps the defect is in one of the two *'an'anahs*," because the preserved hadith did not explicitly mention the hidden name, which is al-Rahman, in either of the two narrations mentioned earlier. At that point, we return to invalidating the narration where we find no apparent defect other than the *'an'anah*. This is a valid example of when it can be determined that al-A'mash's *'an'anah* is not accepted, especially if the hadith is one that is rejected.The Shaykh : The two who usually employ al-A'mash's *'an'anah*—it can be said in this situation, for some reason, that the authors of the Sahihs avoided narrating this narration of al-A'mash from Habib because it contains *'an'anah* and a contradiction in the text. This is my answer to your second question.

Another questioner : Shaykh, a question.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

Another questioner : You mentioned that al-A'mash's *'an'anah* in the two Sahihs is carried as direct hearing, and that is due to trust...The Shaykh : ...so I do not know, regarding Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki's *'an'anah* in Sahih Muslim, in the case of his *'an'anah* from Jabir, what is the difference between it and al-A'mash's *'an'anah*?

The Shaykh : The difference is clear. When the detail came from Imam al-Layth ibn Sa'd al-Misri (may Allah have mercy on him), he asked Abu al-Zubayr to inform him of the narrations he had heard directly from Jabir. By this, the narrations he had not heard from Jabir were distinguished for him. The difference here is that Jabir's narrations were divided, by al-Layth's precise question to him, into two sections: a section he heard from Jabir and a section he did not hear from Jabir. So, whatever was from the first section, whether it came explicitly as a direct narration from a path other than al-Layth, or came via *'an'anah* from al-Layth's path, both are carried as connected. However, if it came from a narration of someone other than al-Layth from Abu al-Zubayr via *'an'anah*, this remains from the second section, in which Abu al-Zubayr did not explicitly state to Imam al-Layth that he had heard them. So it is as if it were an explicit text, and in general terms, every hadith narrated by Abu al-Zubayr via *'an'anah* is not from the first section, which he informed al-Layth that he had heard from Jabir.

Another questioner : Very well, Shaykh, regarding al-Layth's narration from al-A'mash from Abu al-Zubayr, it is carried as connected. Very well, sometimes *tadlis* is removed via other narrations that explicitly state direct hearing, even if they are from a path other than al-Layth. Is it not possible that this occurs and that Imam Muslim may have looked at these? Or how?

The Shaykh : I did not understand what you meant?

The questioner : I mean, may Allah reward you, now al-Layth narrated from Abu al-Zubayr what was heard by Abu al-Zubayr.

The Shaykh: That is correct.

The questioner : Very well, as is known, *tadlis* is sometimes removed by the arrival of another narration from Abu al-Zubayr or from other *mudallis* who narrated it.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Is it not possible that Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) looked at these narrations and carried his narration, as he presented it in Muslim, as connected?

The Shaykh : This is possible, but it is not with certainty. And in that case, this possibility is either confirmed or it falls away and disappears. However, when we research the depths of books, whether printed or manuscript, and we do not find in many of the narrations via *'an'anah* from al-Zubayr in Sahih Muslim that they are explicitly stated as direct narrations in other books, we cannot prioritize the assumption that Imam Muslim came across the explicit direct narration in another narration. This is said after research and examination. And we do not deny, indeed, it may be correct for me to say that, by the grace of Allah the Exalted and His mercy, I find many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated via *'an'anah* from the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir for which I find an explicit direct narration outside of Muslim. We benefit from this and we rescue al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* from being a defect in the hadith, because Abu al-Zubayr explicitly stated the direct narration in another narration. I recently intended, in the new edition which is now in press, if Allah wills, of my book *Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim* by al-Hafiz al-Mundhiri, that I devoted special effort to following up on Abu al-Zubayr's narrations from Jabir that came via *'an'anah* in Sahih Muslim, and I found some corroborating evidence for them, so I attached them to this abridgment in the new edition. So, when Abu al-Zubayr's narrations from Jabir are under this research, and then we do not find an explicit statement that rescues the invalidation of the hadith by *'an'anah*, we have no choice but to attach these narrations via *'an'anah* in Sahih Muslim to the other section, which corresponds to the first section, in which Abu al-Zubayr informed al-Layth that he had heard them from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him). This is also my answer regarding what preceded it.

Another questioner : Regarding the two Sahihs, they were criticized before this time...

The Shaykh : Correct.

Another questioner : But were they criticized, or one of them, regarding the *tadlis* of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir?

The Shaykh : And how not? Have you not seen the statement of Imam al-Dhahabi in the biography of Abu al-Zubayr? He says, "He has hadiths in Sahih Muslim from his narration from Jabir via *'an'anah*, and there is something in the heart about them." This is first. And second, Ibn al-Qattan al-Farisi followed Imam 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in his book *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, where 'Abd al-Haqq, in reality, sometimes made a praiseworthy effort in pointing out Abu al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* in some narrations that came in, for example, Sunan al-Tirmidhi and others. Then the Imam critic, with knowledge, namely Ibn al-Qattan mentioned earlier, followed up on the narrations via *'an'anah* in the book *Al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, whether from the narration of Imam Muslim or from the narration of others, such as al-Tirmidhi for example, and he elaborated on them, criticizing this Ibn al-Qattan, criticizing Imam 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili for how he pointed out Abu al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* in some narrations and invalidated the hadith with it, while he did not do so in another narration, especially if these narrations via *'an'anah* were in Sahih Muslim. He says, "Perhaps he took the position that the hadith is in Sahih Muslim." Imam Ibn al-Qattan (may Allah have mercy on him) says this, and in that, meaning, perhaps he said, "This is *tadlis* or misleading the readers who find that 'Abd al-Haqq was silent about some hadiths in which Abu al-Zubayr used *'an'anah*, so these readers assume that these hadiths are from the section in which Abu al-Zubayr explicitly stated the direct narration, and that is not the case." So, I am not the one who uniquely invalidates Abu al-Zubayr's hadith from Jabir, but we have predecessors in that, who are the best predecessors for us in criticizing these hadiths with *'an'anah*. Do you have anything?

Another questioner: May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And you. Others.