Definition of Tadlis and Taththil?

The Shaykh : Here I must digress to a very important point that few people point out and few people pay attention to. In fact, when most people hear or read that so-and-so, like al-Hasan al-Basri, is a *mudallis* (one who conceals defects in a chain), their hearts are repelled by this description, and it is thrown into them that he is a man whose integrity is impeached. We must know that *tadlis* (concealment of a defect in a chain) has many types, but this type we are currently discussing does not involve any impeachment of the one who practices this type of *tadlis*. What does this *tadlis* mean? For example, I met with some distinguished scholars repeatedly, especially Ibn Baz (may Allah preserve him) when we were at the university. I heard words from him. If a word, exhortation, or wisdom or something similar reached me from him through a person, and I had not heard it from him directly before, and I said, "In this word I heard from him through [someone], Ibn Baz said..." then I am a *mudallis* in the technical sense. Why did I use this Arabic term? Because it misleads listeners into thinking that I heard this statement from him directly. But I did not say, "I heard Ibn Baz say." If I had said that, I would have been included among the liars, and the reliance on my transmission and my words would have fallen. But since I did not say "I heard" and instead said "Ibn Baz said," this is correct: Ibn Baz said it. But what is the intermediary between me and him? The listener assumes that this is part of what I heard from him. Upon research and verification, it becomes clear that I did not hear this statement from him directly. Ah, he should have said, "It was reported to me from Ibn Baz" or "I was narrated from Ibn Baz." The best thing to say is "Ibn Baz said," but it misleads people into thinking that this is something I received directly from him. This is the meaning of *tadlis*. Then there is another thing that should be added to this: Why does the *mudallis* use this type of *tadlis*? Because there are other types where the *mudallis* may be impeached and his integrity falls, unlike what we are currently discussing with this type of *tadlis*. Why does he use this *tadlis*? There were political circumstances. Some governors held grudges against some narrators, even from among the Companions. So a Successor would be cautious in narrating from that Companion whom the ruler, king, caliph, or governor viewed with hostility. This narrator did not want to expose himself because he had some connection to that Companion who was not approved of by that governor. So he would not say, "So-and-so narrated to me," even though he had heard from him. Instead, he would say, "So-and-so said," because if he said "So-and-so said," it would not establish his direct connection with him. But if he said, "So-and-so narrated to me," he would have established his direct connection with him. In this case, he avoids this explicit statement in order to ward off the harm that might befall him if he explicitly narrated the hadith. So, *tadlis* of this type is for personal reasons and circumstances, some of which are political, that compel the narrator to narrate with *'an* (indirect attribution) and not explicitly narrate the hadith. Scholars of hadith suspend relying on his hadith until it becomes clear to them either that he heard it directly from him, or they say, "He explicitly narrated the hadith in another chain," so they are safe from his *tadlis* and his hadith becomes valid. This is as a rule. Sometimes it appears that there is an intermediary between him and the Companion or other person from whom the hadith is narrated. In that case, they look at the intermediary. If the intermediary is trustworthy, his hadith is valid because a trustworthy person narrated from a trustworthy person from the Companion. So, when one hears in a lecture that so-and-so is a *mudallis*, one should not rush to the mind that this is an impeachment of his integrity. No, rather, this is a technical term among scholars of hadith due to their precision in narration, that nothing should be taken from one known for this type of *tadlis* unless he explicitly narrates the hadith. Once we know this and return to the hadith of the two pauses, al-Hasan al-Basri's narration from Samurah with *'an* (indirect attribution), and we do not know if he heard the hadith directly from him or received it from him through an intermediary. This intermediary is unknown to us. So the hadith remains among the weak hadiths. And all of this is based on the preference of the narration that the second pause was after he (peace and blessings be upon him) finished al-Fatihah. Most of the narrations that came from the narrator from al-Hasan al-Basri, and he is Yunus ibn Ubayd, most of the narrations came from Yunus from al-Hasan from Samurah with the pause after finishing the entire recitation. In that case, the reliance on this hadith falls, even if it is established that al-Hasan al-Basri heard it from Samurah ibn Jundub. This is something that does not exist.The Shaykh : That he says, "It was reported to me from Ibn Baz" or "I narrated from Ibn Baz." The best thing to say is that Ibn Baz implies to people that this is something he received from him. This is the meaning of tadlis. Then there is another point that should be added to this: why does the one who commits tadlis use this type of tadlis? This is because there are other types where the one who commits tadlis may be criticized and his integrity (adalah) is dropped, unlike what we are currently discussing regarding this type of tadlis. Why does he commit this tadlis? There were political circumstances where some governors held grudges against some narrators, even from among the Companions. So a Successor (Tabi'i) would be cautious in narrating from that Companion whom the ruler, king, caliph, or governor viewed with hostility. This narrator did not want to expose himself because he had some connection to that Companion who was disliked by that governor. So he would not say, "So-and-so narrated to me," even though he had heard from him, but rather he would say, "So-and-so said." Because if he said, "So-and-so said," it would not establish his direct connection with him. But if he said, "So-and-so narrated to me," he would have established his direct connection with him. In this case, he avoids making this explicit statement in order to ward off the harm that might befall him if he explicitly stated the narration. So, tadlis of this type is due to personal reasons and circumstances, some of which are political, that compel the narrator to narrate using the "an" (from) formula and not explicitly state the narration. Scholars of hadith suspend relying on his hadith until it becomes clear to them either that he heard it directly from him, or they say, "He explicitly stated the narration in another chain," so they are safe from his tadlis and his hadith becomes valid. This is as a rule. Sometimes it appears that there is an intermediary between him and the Companion or other person from whom the hadith is narrated. In that case, they look at the intermediary. If the intermediary is trustworthy, his hadith is valid because a trustworthy person narrated from a trustworthy person from the Companion. So, when one hears in a lecture that so-and-so is a tadlis narrator, one should not immediately assume that this is a criticism of his integrity. No, rather this is a technical term among scholars of hadith due to their precision in narration, that nothing is accepted from one known for this type of tadlis unless he explicitly states the narration. Once we know this and return to the hadith of the two pauses, the narration of al-Hasan al-Basri from Samurah using the "an" formula, and we do not know if he heard the hadith directly from him or received it from him through an intermediary, and this intermediary is unknown to us, the hadith remains in the category of weak hadiths. And all of this is based on the preference of the narration that the second pause was after he (peace and blessings be upon him) finished al-Fatihah. Most of the narrations that came from the narrator from al-Hasan al-Basri, and he is Yunus ibn Ubayd, most of the narrations came from Yunus from al-Hasan from Samurah with the pause after finishing the entire recitation. In that case, relying on this hadith is suspended, even if it is established that al-Hasan al-Basri heard it from Samurah ibn Jundub. This is something that does not exist.