Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned Al-A'mash in the second tier of the tiers of those who practice concealment (tadlis), even though it is now well known that he is one who practices concealment; therefore, if he uses the formula of indeterminate attribution (ina'na), his narration is not accepted.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : First, regarding Al-A'mash: Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned Al-A'mash in the second tier of the tiers of those who practice concealment, even though it is well known now that he is one who practices concealment; therefore, if he uses the formula of indeterminate attribution, his hearing or narration is not accepted. Meanwhile, Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned him in the tier of those whose narrations are accepted. This is the first point. The second is regarding Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki, who is praised. The one who responded to you in "Tanbih al-Muslim" transmitted from many of the early preservers that none of them described him as one who practices concealment until the era of al-Daraqutni and al-Nasa'i, who are considered late relative to him. These were the first to mention that he practices concealment. What is your opinion on this?
The Shaykh : My answer to this is based on the rules of hadith, or based on some of the rules of hadith, among which are: "He who has memorized is a proof against he who has not memorized" and "Criticism (jarh) takes precedence over vindication (ta'dil)". Concealment (tadlis) is a known and clear criticism, not a vague one. If we combine these two rules, the argument that the early scholars did not describe so-and-so with concealment, but only some of the later scholars, falls away. Because the answer we will give is: Is this criticism correct, or does it contradict reality? Does it contradict those who came before? This is correct, because they did not mention concealment in him. But some of the later preservers mentioned concealment in him, meaning in the narrator so-and-so or so-and-so; the specific identification does not matter to us now. They mentioned concealment in him. He who has memorized is a proof against he who has not memorized, and concealment is a defect and an explained criticism. It is necessary to rely on this criticism, even if it came from some of the later preservers.
Regarding the two individuals mentioned above, Al-A'mash and Abu al-Zubayr: Al-A'mash was indeed described as one who practices concealment, but due to the abundance of his hadith, the authors of the two authentic collections treated his hadith with reliance, even if his hadith was narrated with indeterminate attribution, because his concealment is very little compared to the abundance of his hadith.
Nevertheless, when hadith scholars classify those who practice concealment into those tiers, as you mentioned regarding Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, this is for their research and investigation. But they do not intend by this that the concealment of the one whom Ibn Hajar, for example, placed in the second tier does not sometimes cause weakness in the hadith. Rather, the principle is that they overlook his concealment, unless they see that there is a problem in the hadith they narrated from the legal perspective, such as if there is an anomaly in the text. Then they try to find a defect in the chain of this hadith that has a type of anomaly. They investigate with extreme precision and stop at this indeterminate attribution. Here they say: The indeterminate attribution in this chain is the concealment of Al-A'mash. Thus, they generally overlook his concealment, but they sometimes attribute some hadiths to his concealment if it becomes clear to them that there is something in the text that indicates an anomaly, as indicated by the general principles of the Shari'ah.
As for Abu al-Zubayr, he narrated a lot for Muslim from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him). He was described as one who practices concealment, except when al-Layth ibn Sa'd narrated from him, in which case it is attributed to direct hearing. This is because it is established among hadith scholars that al-Layth ibn Sa'd, who is an imam among the imams of the Muslims, was paired with Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), and some of them preferred him over him in hadith and jurisprudence. However, some of the intelligent ones said the difference between them is that the students of Malik preserved him by caring for his hadith and jurisprudence, whereas the students of al-Layth neglected him. Therefore, he did not become as famous as Imam Malik, although he is like him or even more distinguished. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd, this famous Egyptian known for his dignity, jurisprudence, and knowledge, became aware of Abu al-Zubayr's concealment long ago.
Therefore, he came to him and asked him a direct question. Such a thing is rarely found among the narrators who were described with concealment, whether those who described him were early or later scholars. We do not find this answer. This direct question is posed to him frankly. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd said to Abu al-Zubayr: "All these hadiths that you narrate from Jabir, did you hear them all from him?" He said, "No." This is from the fairness of Abu al-Zubayr, and this is what saved him from the hadith scholars dropping his integrity. So he was considered trustworthy among them. But when he clarified that some of the hadiths he narrates from Jabir he heard from him, and others he did not hear from him, they classified him among those who practice concealment. And note, as I said, al-Layth ibn Sa'd asked him that question, and he answered with the frankness mentioned here that he did not hear all the hadiths he narrates from Jabir. He said, "Then teach me the hadiths that you heard from him." So he taught him, and al-Layth ibn Sa'd would narrate from Abu al-Zubayr the hadiths that he had heard from Jabir.
Since the matter is so, the critical scholars like al-Daraqutni and others, when they find a hadith in "Sahih Muslim" narrated by Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, or some of them from his narration from someone other than Jabir, they hesitate to use it as evidence, because it is established that he did not hear all of Abu al-Zubayr's hadiths.
The fact that Muslim included the narrations of Abu al-Zubayr does not necessitate the following reality, which that aggressive Egyptian overlooks. This reality is that we have no evidence indicating that Abu al-Zubayr was known for tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) in the eyes of Imam Muslim, and yet Muslim narrated from him. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the tadlis of Abu al-Zubayr is not established because of Imam Muslim’s narration from him regarding Jabir. As we stated at the beginning of this answer, "He who has memorized is a proof against the one who has not memorized". For this reason, some of the later critics who combined the ability to review the opinions of both the early and later scholars regarding narrators—namely, Imam al-Dhahabi—explicitly stated, when he biographed Abu al-Zubayr, authenticated him, and clarified that he was accused of tadlis, that there is something in the heart regarding what Imam Muslim narrated from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. Why? Because his description as one who commits tadlis is established, and it is not a rejected criticism (jarh) but an accepted one. Some of the memorizers (huffaz) who followed the generation after Imam al-Daraqutni and his peers proceeded to declare the narrations of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective due to tadlis. Leading them was Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili al-Andalusi, who frequently declared the narrations reported from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective due to tadlis in his book "Al-Ahkam". He has three books: "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra", "Al-Ahkam al-Wushta", and "Al-Ahkam al-Sughra". The origin of these three books is the first one, "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra", which is a comprehensive book and one of the finest books that assist researchers and investigators in verifying hadiths and tracing chains of narration. This is because Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, in his book "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra", transmits hadiths from the books of the Sunnah with their chains of narration. Even when he transmits from al-Bukhari and Muslim, he says, "Al-Bukhari narrated from so-and-so from so-and-so," presenting the chain up to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Similarly for Muslim, Abu Dawud, and the other books of the Sunan that he had access to. A student of knowledge can use this book, even in this era when the books of the Sunnah have begun to be published in a very superior manner, praise be to Allah, to find chains of narration for some books that he cannot find even today in printed editions because they have not been printed. For example, "Musnad al-Bazzar": he transmits the hadiths he mentions in "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra" from al-Bazzar with al-Bazzar’s chain. We often struggle and toil to find al-Bazzar’s chain and find no trace of it except in "Kashf al-Astar", for example, but that is specific to the additions to the six books. However, sometimes al-Bazzar has a unique addition mentioned by some memorizers like al-Zayla'i and al-'Asqalani, and they remain silent about its chain. We try to stumble upon its chain and return to "Kashf al-Astar", but we do not find the chain due to the condition he set. When we return to "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra" by al-Isbili, we benefit from its chain there.
This is a sample from the biography of "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra". As for "Al-Ahkam al-Sughra", it is more beneficial for beginners in this science because he removed the chains of narration and limited himself to tracing the hadiths to their sources, adding that he provides a summary of the removed chain. This is scientific verification, because people from ancient times until today assume that the science of hadith is to open these books and copy half a page, then fill it with what? "So-and-so narrated it, part such-and-such, page such-and-such." Some of them lengthen it by saying, "Book such-and-such, chapter such-and-such, part such-and-such, page such-and-such, so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, lines," and then they stop. The student and researcher do not understand what the status of this chain is: is it authentic, good, weak, or another of the grades of hadith? There, the Hafiz Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, when he removed the chains of the narrators of the hadiths in his second book, "Al-Ahkam al-Wushta", from his first book, "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra", gives you the grade of the chain. He authenticates it, weakens it, and gives the hadith the grade it deserves, regardless of whether he was correct or wrong. We are all subject to both correctness and error, and the important thing is what prevails in a person. Without a doubt, this Hafiz and his like are more correct than they are wrong. This is what we must always and forever focus on, and we must not demand the impossible from any author, whether ancient or modern, because this is the nature of the human being whom Allah (Mighty and Majestic) created with the propensity for error and forgetfulness.
As for the third book, "Al-Ahkam al-Sughra", it is a summary of the middle one. The middle one contains authentic, good, and weak hadiths, whereas the small one contains only the authentic hadiths in his critique.
Therefore, I propose that if one of the students of knowledge is granted breadth in this science and energy, he should attempt to verify this book and publish it for the people, because it is equivalent to Ibn Daqiq al-Eid’s "Al-Ilmam fi Ahadith al-Ahkam" or al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani’s "Bulugh al-Maram min Ahadith al-Ahkam." In fact, it is perhaps better than both of them.
This is something related to the tadlis concerning al-A'mash or Abu al-Zubayr. And a final point: I said that Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili declares the hadiths that came from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective. But after him came al-Hafiz Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Qattan, who is also a famous memorizer from that region. He followed up on Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in many instances where it appeared to Ibn al-Qattan that al-Isbili had erred, in his book which he named "Al-Wahm wa al-Ihham". This book is, unfortunately, still in the realm of manuscripts. One of the students of knowledge in this country was kind enough to send me a photocopied copy when he came across the book of that aggressive, transgressing Egyptian and found that he had contradicted correct scientific critique and found that I had hit the mark in my critique of the hadiths of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. He found a long chapter in Ibn al-Qattan’s book, so he called me on the phone and mentioned this to me. He asked for my opinion: "Should I send you a copy of this book?" I said, "Of course, with thanks, please do." He actually sent the book. When I looked into what was in it, it became clear to me that Ibn al-Qattan followed up on al-Hafiz Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in dozens of hadiths, presenting them with their chains, not only from "Sunan Abu Dawud" and the Sunan below it, but also from "Sahih Muslim". He said, "Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili remained silent about such-and-such a hadith and such-and-such a hadith, which are from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and some of them are in "Sahih Muslim". Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili limited his attribution of these hadiths to Muslim, thereby misleading the readers. Here is the point: he misled the readers into thinking that they are free from critique. He did not mention, as he did for the hadiths that Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili declared defective due to Abu al-Zubayr’s use of the 'an (from) formula, that he remained silent about some of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. He said, "Muslim narrated it from Jabir," thereby misleading the reader into thinking that this hadith and its like are free from the defect of the 'an formula, the 'an of Abu al-Zubayr. Ibn al-Qattan followed up with a very broad and generous scientific spirit and placed these hadiths before the reader so that he would be aware that these hadiths are defective due to the 'an of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir.
And my turn came, both in the past before I looked into this book and recently. You know, if Allah wills, that there is a printed book from long ago, namely "Mukhtasar Muslim" by Imam al-Mundhiri, with my commentary and verification. I had commented on many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. From here, that transgressing Egyptian entered into his aggression against me, even though I had tried in the past and increased that recently to save many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir from weakness. I did this either by tracing this hadith of Abu al-Zubayr in other sources from the books of the Sunan where the explicit narration (tadhrib) was stated, or by clarifying some of the hadiths that came with the 'an formula in Sahih Muslim. I commented and said, "But Abu al-Zubayr explicitly stated the narration in Musnad Ahmad or in others."
Now we are preparing this book for a new edition with additional verification, particularly in this aspect. I deliberately traced what Muslim narrated through Abu al-Zubayr, attempting to rescue what I could from the defect of *'an'anah* by finding an explicit statement from Abu al-Zubayr in some books, or by finding a corroborating narration or a supporting chain that would save the hadith from the defect of *'an'anah* and bring it to the level of authenticity befitting "Sahih al-Imam Muslim". This is the end of this answer.
The Shaykh : My answer to this is based on the rules of hadith, or based on some of the rules of hadith, among which are: "He who has memorized is a proof against he who has not memorized" and "Criticism (jarh) takes precedence over vindication (ta'dil)". Concealment (tadlis) is a known and clear criticism, not a vague one. If we combine these two rules, the argument that the early scholars did not describe so-and-so with concealment, but only some of the later scholars, falls away. Because the answer we will give is: Is this criticism correct, or does it contradict reality? Does it contradict those who came before? This is correct, because they did not mention concealment in him. But some of the later preservers mentioned concealment in him, meaning in the narrator so-and-so or so-and-so; the specific identification does not matter to us now. They mentioned concealment in him. He who has memorized is a proof against he who has not memorized, and concealment is a defect and an explained criticism. It is necessary to rely on this criticism, even if it came from some of the later preservers.
Regarding the two individuals mentioned above, Al-A'mash and Abu al-Zubayr: Al-A'mash was indeed described as one who practices concealment, but due to the abundance of his hadith, the authors of the two authentic collections treated his hadith with reliance, even if his hadith was narrated with indeterminate attribution, because his concealment is very little compared to the abundance of his hadith.
Nevertheless, when hadith scholars classify those who practice concealment into those tiers, as you mentioned regarding Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, this is for their research and investigation. But they do not intend by this that the concealment of the one whom Ibn Hajar, for example, placed in the second tier does not sometimes cause weakness in the hadith. Rather, the principle is that they overlook his concealment, unless they see that there is a problem in the hadith they narrated from the legal perspective, such as if there is an anomaly in the text. Then they try to find a defect in the chain of this hadith that has a type of anomaly. They investigate with extreme precision and stop at this indeterminate attribution. Here they say: The indeterminate attribution in this chain is the concealment of Al-A'mash. Thus, they generally overlook his concealment, but they sometimes attribute some hadiths to his concealment if it becomes clear to them that there is something in the text that indicates an anomaly, as indicated by the general principles of the Shari'ah.
As for Abu al-Zubayr, he narrated a lot for Muslim from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him). He was described as one who practices concealment, except when al-Layth ibn Sa'd narrated from him, in which case it is attributed to direct hearing. This is because it is established among hadith scholars that al-Layth ibn Sa'd, who is an imam among the imams of the Muslims, was paired with Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), and some of them preferred him over him in hadith and jurisprudence. However, some of the intelligent ones said the difference between them is that the students of Malik preserved him by caring for his hadith and jurisprudence, whereas the students of al-Layth neglected him. Therefore, he did not become as famous as Imam Malik, although he is like him or even more distinguished. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd, this famous Egyptian known for his dignity, jurisprudence, and knowledge, became aware of Abu al-Zubayr's concealment long ago.
Therefore, he came to him and asked him a direct question. Such a thing is rarely found among the narrators who were described with concealment, whether those who described him were early or later scholars. We do not find this answer. This direct question is posed to him frankly. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd said to Abu al-Zubayr: "All these hadiths that you narrate from Jabir, did you hear them all from him?" He said, "No." This is from the fairness of Abu al-Zubayr, and this is what saved him from the hadith scholars dropping his integrity. So he was considered trustworthy among them. But when he clarified that some of the hadiths he narrates from Jabir he heard from him, and others he did not hear from him, they classified him among those who practice concealment. And note, as I said, al-Layth ibn Sa'd asked him that question, and he answered with the frankness mentioned here that he did not hear all the hadiths he narrates from Jabir. He said, "Then teach me the hadiths that you heard from him." So he taught him, and al-Layth ibn Sa'd would narrate from Abu al-Zubayr the hadiths that he had heard from Jabir.
Since the matter is so, the critical scholars like al-Daraqutni and others, when they find a hadith in "Sahih Muslim" narrated by Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, or some of them from his narration from someone other than Jabir, they hesitate to use it as evidence, because it is established that he did not hear all of Abu al-Zubayr's hadiths.
The fact that Muslim included the narrations of Abu al-Zubayr does not necessitate the following reality, which that aggressive Egyptian overlooks. This reality is that we have no evidence indicating that Abu al-Zubayr was known for tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) in the eyes of Imam Muslim, and yet Muslim narrated from him. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the tadlis of Abu al-Zubayr is not established because of Imam Muslim’s narration from him regarding Jabir. As we stated at the beginning of this answer, "He who has memorized is a proof against the one who has not memorized". For this reason, some of the later critics who combined the ability to review the opinions of both the early and later scholars regarding narrators—namely, Imam al-Dhahabi—explicitly stated, when he biographed Abu al-Zubayr, authenticated him, and clarified that he was accused of tadlis, that there is something in the heart regarding what Imam Muslim narrated from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. Why? Because his description as one who commits tadlis is established, and it is not a rejected criticism (jarh) but an accepted one. Some of the memorizers (huffaz) who followed the generation after Imam al-Daraqutni and his peers proceeded to declare the narrations of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective due to tadlis. Leading them was Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili al-Andalusi, who frequently declared the narrations reported from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective due to tadlis in his book "Al-Ahkam". He has three books: "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra", "Al-Ahkam al-Wushta", and "Al-Ahkam al-Sughra". The origin of these three books is the first one, "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra", which is a comprehensive book and one of the finest books that assist researchers and investigators in verifying hadiths and tracing chains of narration. This is because Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, in his book "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra", transmits hadiths from the books of the Sunnah with their chains of narration. Even when he transmits from al-Bukhari and Muslim, he says, "Al-Bukhari narrated from so-and-so from so-and-so," presenting the chain up to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Similarly for Muslim, Abu Dawud, and the other books of the Sunan that he had access to. A student of knowledge can use this book, even in this era when the books of the Sunnah have begun to be published in a very superior manner, praise be to Allah, to find chains of narration for some books that he cannot find even today in printed editions because they have not been printed. For example, "Musnad al-Bazzar": he transmits the hadiths he mentions in "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra" from al-Bazzar with al-Bazzar’s chain. We often struggle and toil to find al-Bazzar’s chain and find no trace of it except in "Kashf al-Astar", for example, but that is specific to the additions to the six books. However, sometimes al-Bazzar has a unique addition mentioned by some memorizers like al-Zayla'i and al-'Asqalani, and they remain silent about its chain. We try to stumble upon its chain and return to "Kashf al-Astar", but we do not find the chain due to the condition he set. When we return to "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra" by al-Isbili, we benefit from its chain there.
This is a sample from the biography of "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra". As for "Al-Ahkam al-Sughra", it is more beneficial for beginners in this science because he removed the chains of narration and limited himself to tracing the hadiths to their sources, adding that he provides a summary of the removed chain. This is scientific verification, because people from ancient times until today assume that the science of hadith is to open these books and copy half a page, then fill it with what? "So-and-so narrated it, part such-and-such, page such-and-such." Some of them lengthen it by saying, "Book such-and-such, chapter such-and-such, part such-and-such, page such-and-such, so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, lines," and then they stop. The student and researcher do not understand what the status of this chain is: is it authentic, good, weak, or another of the grades of hadith? There, the Hafiz Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, when he removed the chains of the narrators of the hadiths in his second book, "Al-Ahkam al-Wushta", from his first book, "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra", gives you the grade of the chain. He authenticates it, weakens it, and gives the hadith the grade it deserves, regardless of whether he was correct or wrong. We are all subject to both correctness and error, and the important thing is what prevails in a person. Without a doubt, this Hafiz and his like are more correct than they are wrong. This is what we must always and forever focus on, and we must not demand the impossible from any author, whether ancient or modern, because this is the nature of the human being whom Allah (Mighty and Majestic) created with the propensity for error and forgetfulness.
As for the third book, "Al-Ahkam al-Sughra", it is a summary of the middle one. The middle one contains authentic, good, and weak hadiths, whereas the small one contains only the authentic hadiths in his critique.
Therefore, I propose that if one of the students of knowledge is granted breadth in this science and energy, he should attempt to verify this book and publish it for the people, because it is equivalent to Ibn Daqiq al-Eid’s "Al-Ilmam fi Ahadith al-Ahkam" or al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani’s "Bulugh al-Maram min Ahadith al-Ahkam." In fact, it is perhaps better than both of them.
This is something related to the tadlis concerning al-A'mash or Abu al-Zubayr. And a final point: I said that Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili declares the hadiths that came from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir defective. But after him came al-Hafiz Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Qattan, who is also a famous memorizer from that region. He followed up on Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in many instances where it appeared to Ibn al-Qattan that al-Isbili had erred, in his book which he named "Al-Wahm wa al-Ihham". This book is, unfortunately, still in the realm of manuscripts. One of the students of knowledge in this country was kind enough to send me a photocopied copy when he came across the book of that aggressive, transgressing Egyptian and found that he had contradicted correct scientific critique and found that I had hit the mark in my critique of the hadiths of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. He found a long chapter in Ibn al-Qattan’s book, so he called me on the phone and mentioned this to me. He asked for my opinion: "Should I send you a copy of this book?" I said, "Of course, with thanks, please do." He actually sent the book. When I looked into what was in it, it became clear to me that Ibn al-Qattan followed up on al-Hafiz Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in dozens of hadiths, presenting them with their chains, not only from "Sunan Abu Dawud" and the Sunan below it, but also from "Sahih Muslim". He said, "Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili remained silent about such-and-such a hadith and such-and-such a hadith, which are from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and some of them are in "Sahih Muslim". Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili limited his attribution of these hadiths to Muslim, thereby misleading the readers. Here is the point: he misled the readers into thinking that they are free from critique. He did not mention, as he did for the hadiths that Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili declared defective due to Abu al-Zubayr’s use of the 'an (from) formula, that he remained silent about some of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. He said, "Muslim narrated it from Jabir," thereby misleading the reader into thinking that this hadith and its like are free from the defect of the 'an formula, the 'an of Abu al-Zubayr. Ibn al-Qattan followed up with a very broad and generous scientific spirit and placed these hadiths before the reader so that he would be aware that these hadiths are defective due to the 'an of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir.
And my turn came, both in the past before I looked into this book and recently. You know, if Allah wills, that there is a printed book from long ago, namely "Mukhtasar Muslim" by Imam al-Mundhiri, with my commentary and verification. I had commented on many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. From here, that transgressing Egyptian entered into his aggression against me, even though I had tried in the past and increased that recently to save many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated through the route of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir from weakness. I did this either by tracing this hadith of Abu al-Zubayr in other sources from the books of the Sunan where the explicit narration (tadhrib) was stated, or by clarifying some of the hadiths that came with the 'an formula in Sahih Muslim. I commented and said, "But Abu al-Zubayr explicitly stated the narration in Musnad Ahmad or in others."
Now we are preparing this book for a new edition with additional verification, particularly in this aspect. I deliberately traced what Muslim narrated through Abu al-Zubayr, attempting to rescue what I could from the defect of *'an'anah* by finding an explicit statement from Abu al-Zubayr in some books, or by finding a corroborating narration or a supporting chain that would save the hadith from the defect of *'an'anah* and bring it to the level of authenticity befitting "Sahih al-Imam Muslim". This is the end of this answer.