If the Successor is not a deceiver but is known for reporting without a complete chain, and he narrates from some of the Companions without a complete chain and from others with a complete chain, and then he says, “from a man among the Companions”

The questioner : This is another issue I have come across. It is that some of the Successors are not known for concealment of defects in a chain, but they are known for reporting without a complete chain. He comes and says, “from a man among the Companions,” while he narrates from some of the Companions without a complete chain and from some of them with a complete chain. Then he comes and says, “from a man among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him),” and we do not know whether this unspecified man among the Companions is one from whom this Successor heard, or one from whom he reported without a complete chain. What is the ruling on such a narration?

The Shaykh : What is the difference between this question and the previous question at the beginning of the session?

The questioner : The one which is...

The Shaykh : We know that he narrated from some of the Companions by direct hearing, but we do not know that he narrated from some others whom he names, but we do not know that he narrated from them. So the answer was that we accept his narration as evidence based on the ruling of contemporaneity. So what is the difference now between this question and that question?

The questioner : In the first case, the Companion was... the Successor was... the Companion was named.

The Shaykh : There is no difference.

The questioner : There is no difference between them.

The Shaykh : No, absolutely not.

The questioner : And in this case, the Companion is unspecified.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : There is no difference between them.

The Shaykh : There is no essential difference. This difference is significant to some of the innovators who attack some of the Companions. But as for the people of the Sunnah, who say that the Companions are trustworthy, it is the same whether the Companion is named or not; he is evidence if the narrator from him is trustworthy and not known for concealment of defects in a chain. From this perspective, there is no difference between the first question and the last question. This is apart from the fact that the form differed: in the first question, the Companion was named, but the answer was that his narration is evidence because he is not known for concealment of defects in a chain and he is a contemporary of him. Here, the Companion who was not named is not a deceiver, he is trustworthy, and he says, “a man among the Companions.” So it does not matter to us after that whether he named him or not; the result is the same!