Avoiding Unreliable Transmitters: Critical Reception of Reports and Historical Claims

1. Chapter scope and governing question

بَابُ النَّهْيِ عَنِ الرِّوَايَةِ عَنِ الضُّعَفَاءِ وَالِاحْتِيَاطِ فِي تَحَمُّلِهَا
Translation: Chapter on refraining from transmission through weak narrators and exercising care when receiving reports.

Taḥammul is receiving a report; adāʾ is conveying it. The mere existence of a chain does not establish acceptability. Citing a weak report with its status disclosed for critical discussion differs from spreading it as proof. The chapter includes Prophetic reports and Companion statements; each must retain its attribution.

2. First Prophetic warning and its full chain

وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، قَالَا: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي سَعِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي أَيُّوبَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو هَانِئٍ، عَنْ أَبِي عُثْمَانَ مُسْلِمِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: «سَيَكُونُ فِي آخِرِ أُمَّتِي أُنَاسٌ يُحَدِّثُونَكُمْ مَا لَمْ تَسْمَعُوا أَنْتُمْ وَلَا آبَاؤُكُمْ، فَإِيَّاكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ».
Translation: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Numayr and Zuhayr ibn Ḥarb both narrated to me, saying: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd narrated to us; Saʿīd ibn Abī Ayyūb narrated to him; Abū Hāniʾ narrated to him, from Abū ʿUthmān Muslim ibn Yasār, from Abū Hurayrah, from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, who said: “In the latter part of my community there will be people who tell you things that neither you nor your fathers have heard. So beware of them; keep away from them.”

“What you have not heard” is not a ban on every unfamiliar authentic report; it warns against suspicious, unsupported attributions. Abū ʿUthmān and Muslim b. Yasār identify one transmitter by kunyah and name, not two narrators.

3. Second route: deceptive fabricators

وَحَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ حَرْمَلَةَ بْنِ عِمْرَانَ التُّجِيبِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو شُرَيْحٍ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ شَرَاحِيلَ بْنَ يَزِيدَ يَقُولُ: أَخْبَرَنِي مُسْلِمُ بْنُ يَسَارٍ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ يَقُولُ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ: «يَكُونُ فِي آخِرِ الزَّمَانِ دَجَّالُونَ كَذَّابُونَ، يَأْتُونَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَحَادِيثِ بِمَا لَمْ تَسْمَعُوا أَنْتُمْ وَلَا آبَاؤُكُمْ، فَإِيَّاكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ، لَا يُضِلُّونَكُمْ وَلَا يَفْتِنُونَكُمْ».
Translation: Ḥarmalah ibn Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥarmalah ibn ʿImrān al-Tujībī narrated to me: Ibn Wahb narrated to us; Abū Shurayḥ narrated to him that he heard Sharāḥīl ibn Yazīd say: Muslim ibn Yasār informed me that he heard Abū Hurayrah say: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Towards the end of time there will be impostors, inveterate liars, who bring you reports that neither you nor your fathers have heard. Beware of them and keep away from them, lest they lead you astray or put you to trial.”

“Dajjālūn kadhdhābūn” highlights deliberate deception, while “lā yuḍillūnakum wa-lā yaftinūnakum” identifies the danger to recipients. Both chains remain complete; a wording addition must be evaluated in its own transmission context.

4. Does unfamiliarity alone prove weakness?

Unfamiliarity is not itself a technical ruling of weakness. A reliable transmitter may preserve material others did not. An unusual report from an unreliable transmitter demands examination of his reliability, corroborating routes and contradictions before acceptance.

5. Ibn Masʿūd on an unidentified source

وَحَدَّثَنِي أَبُو سَعِيدٍ الْأَشَجُّ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، حَدَّثَنَا الْأَعْمَشُ، عَنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ بْنِ رَافِعٍ، عَنْ عَامِرِ بْنِ عَبَدَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ: «إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ لَيَتَمَثَّلُ فِي صُورَةِ الرَّجُلِ، فَيَأْتِي الْقَوْمَ فَيُحَدِّثُهُمْ بِالْحَدِيثِ مِنَ الْكَذِبِ، فَيَتَفَرَّقُونَ، فَيَقُولُ الرَّجُلُ مِنْهُمْ: سَمِعْتُ رَجُلًا أَعْرِفُ وَجْهَهُ، وَلَا أَدْرِي مَا اسْمُهُ، يُحَدِّثُ».
Translation: Abū Saʿīd al-Ashajj narrated to me; Wakīʿ narrated to us; al-Aʿmash narrated to us, from al-Musayyab ibn Rāfiʿ, from ʿĀmir ibn ʿAbadah, who said that ʿAbd Allāh [ibn Masʿūd] said: “Satan may take the form of a man and come to a group, telling them a fabricated story. They then disperse, and one of them says, ‘I heard a man telling it; I recognize his face, but I do not know his name.’”

This is an athar attributed to Ibn Masʿūd, not a new Prophetic statement. Recognition of a face does not identify or authenticate the narrator. Al-Nawawī notes an isnād feature: three Successors narrating in succession.

6. Ibn ʿAmr and counterfeit religious recitation

وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ طَاوُسٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ، قَالَ: «إِنَّ فِي الْبَحْرِ شَيَاطِينَ مَسْجُونَةً أَوْثَقَهَا سُلَيْمَانُ، يُوشِكُ أَنْ تَخْرُجَ فَتَقْرَأَ عَلَى النَّاسِ قُرْآنًا».
Translation: Muḥammad ibn Rāfiʿ narrated to me; ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us; Maʿmar informed us, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father Ṭāwūs, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, who said: “There are devils imprisoned in the sea whom Solomon bound. Soon they may come out and recite to people something they present as Qurʾān.”

Al-Nawawī explains “recite a Qurʾān to the people” here as counterfeit discourse misleadingly presented as Qurʾān, not the ordinary recital of genuine revelation. The passage is a Companion statement, not a direct Prophetic ḥadīth.

7. Bushayr and Ibn ʿAbbās: first exchange

وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادٍ وَسَعِيدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو الْأَشْعَثِيُّ جَمِيعًا عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، قَالَ سَعِيدٌ: أَخْبَرَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ حُجَيْرٍ، عَنْ طَاوُسٍ، قَالَ: جَاءَ هَذَا إِلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ـ يَعْنِي بُشَيْرَ بْنَ كَعْبٍ ـ فَجَعَلَ يُحَدِّثُهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: عُدْ لِحَدِيثِ كَذَا وَكَذَا. فَعَادَ لَهُ ثُمَّ حَدَّثَهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ: عُدْ لِحَدِيثِ كَذَا وَكَذَا. فَعَادَ لَهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ: مَا أَدْرِي أَعَرَفْتَ حَدِيثِي كُلَّهُ وَأَنْكَرْتَ هَذَا، أَمْ أَنْكَرْتَ حَدِيثِي كُلَّهُ وَعَرَفْتَ هَذَا؟
Translation: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbbād and Saʿīd ibn ʿAmr al-Ashʿathī both transmitted to me from Ibn ʿUyaynah. Saʿīd said: Sufyān informed us, from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, from Ṭāwūs, who said: “This man—meaning Bushayr ibn Kaʿb—came to Ibn ʿAbbās and began reporting to him. Ibn ʿAbbās said, ‘Repeat the report about such-and-such.’ He repeated it and continued telling him reports. Ibn ʿAbbās again said, ‘Repeat the report about such-and-such.’ He repeated it, then asked, ‘I do not know: have you recognized all my reports and rejected this one, or have you rejected all my reports and recognized this one?’”

“Repeat the report about such-and-such” introduces a concrete check of what is being narrated. The reply follows in the next source segment; the question alone does not amount to a definitive narrator verdict.

8. Ibn ʿAbbās: why reception became more selective

فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «إِنَّا كُنَّا نُحَدِّثُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ إِذْ لَمْ يَكُنْ يُكْذَبُ عَلَيْهِ، فَلَمَّا رَكِبَ النَّاسُ الصَّعْبَ وَالذَّلُولَ تَرَكْنَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْهُ».
Translation: Ibn ʿAbbās replied to him: “We used to narrate from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when falsehood was not being attributed to him. But when people began riding every difficult and docile mount [that is, pursuing all kinds of reports without discrimination], we ceased taking reports from him [merely on people’s say-so].”

“The difficult and the docile” is an idiom drawn from mounts. Al-Nawawī treats it here as indiscriminate dealing in reports of very different quality. “We abandoned transmitting from him” is not abandonment of Prophetic Sunnah: the issue is increasingly strict acceptance of poorly controlled narrators.

9. A second Ibn ʿAbbās formulation

وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ طَاوُسٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: «إِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَحْفَظُ الْحَدِيثَ، وَالْحَدِيثُ يُحْفَظُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ، فَأَمَّا إِذْ رَكِبْتُمْ كُلَّ صَعْبٍ وَذَلُولٍ، فَهَيْهَاتَ».
Translation: Muḥammad ibn Rāfiʿ narrated to me; ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us; Maʿmar informed us, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father, from Ibn ʿAbbās, who said: “We used to memorize hadith, and hadith from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to be carefully preserved. But now that you have ridden every difficult and docile mount [taken up every sort of report], far from it!”

“Fahayhāt” expresses the remoteness of retaining the former level of confidence. Mere volume cannot substitute for disciplined assessment of transmitted material.

10. Third report: Bushayr’s narration is not accepted automatically

وَحَدَّثَنِي أَبُو أَيُّوبَ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ الْغَيْلَانِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَامِرٍ ـ يَعْنِي الْعَقَدِيَّ ـ حَدَّثَنَا رَبَاحٌ، عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، قَالَ: جَاءَ بُشَيْرٌ الْعَدَوِيُّ إِلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فَجَعَلَ يُحَدِّثُ وَيَقُولُ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ، قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ. فَجَعَلَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ لَا يَأْذَنُ لِحَدِيثِهِ وَلَا يَنْظُرُ إِلَيْهِ، فَقَالَ: يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، مَا لِي لَا أَرَاكَ تَسْمَعُ لِحَدِيثِي؟ أُحَدِّثُكَ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ وَلَا تَسْمَعُ.
Translation: Abū Ayyūb Sulaymān ibn ʿUbayd Allāh al-Ghaylānī narrated to me; Abū ʿĀmir al-ʿAqadī narrated to us; Rabāḥ narrated to us, from Qays ibn Saʿd, from Mujāhid, who said: “Bushayr al-ʿAdawī came to Ibn ʿAbbās and kept narrating, saying, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said.’ Ibn ʿAbbās neither listened attentively to his report nor looked at him. Bushayr said, ‘Ibn ʿAbbās, why do I not see you listening to my report? I narrate to you from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, yet you do not listen!’”

Repeatedly saying “the Messenger said” does not by itself authenticate a report. The answer that follows locates the difference in knowledge of the transmitter; the complete chain is retained despite thematic overlap with the previous account.

11. The decisive distinction: a known source

فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «إِنَّا كُنَّا مَرَّةً إِذَا سَمِعْنَا رَجُلًا يَقُولُ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ، ابْتَدَرَتْهُ أَبْصَارُنَا، وَأَصْغَيْنَا إِلَيْهِ بِآذَانِنَا، فَلَمَّا رَكِبَ النَّاسُ الصَّعْبَ وَالذَّلُولَ لَمْ نَأْخُذْ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِلَّا مَا نَعْرِفُ».
Translation: Ibn ʿAbbās replied: “There was a time when, if we heard someone say, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,’ our eyes would immediately turn towards him and we would incline our ears to him. But when people began riding every difficult and docile mount [taking up every sort of report], we accepted from people only what we recognized.”

“We accepted only what we recognized” calls for knowledge of the transmission and those conveying it. Familiar or attractive content does not replace assessment of its transmitters. The commentary treats critical reception as the chapter’s practical rule.

12. What the three Ibn ʿAbbās reports contribute

The first account tests selected reports by repetition, the second contrasts disciplined memorization with unselective uptake, and the third requires known transmitters. Their shared principle does not erase the distinctive wording and chains of each original report.

13. Ibn Abī Mulaykah and scrutiny of a written compilation

حَدَّثَنَا دَاوُدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو الضَّبِّيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا نَافِعُ بْنُ عُمَرَ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ، قَالَ: كَتَبْتُ إِلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَسْأَلُهُ أَنْ يَكْتُبَ لِي كِتَابًا وَيُخْفِيَ عَنِّي، فَقَالَ: «وَلَدٌ نَاصِحٌ، أَنَا أَخْتَارُ لَهُ الْأُمُورَ اخْتِيَارًا وَأُخْفِي عَنْهُ». قَالَ: فَدَعَا بِقَضَاءِ عَلِيٍّ، فَجَعَلَ يَكْتُبُ مِنْهُ أَشْيَاءَ، وَيَمُرُّ بِهِ الشَّيْءُ، فَيَقُولُ: «وَاللَّهِ مَا قَضَى بِهَذَا عَلِيٌّ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ ضَلَّ».
Translation: Dāwūd ibn ʿAmr al-Ḍabbī narrated to us; Nāfiʿ ibn ʿUmar narrated to us, from Ibn Abī Mulaykah, who said: “I wrote to Ibn ʿAbbās asking him to write a book for me and to withhold some things from me.” Ibn ʿAbbās said, “A sincere son! I shall carefully select matters for him and keep some back from him.” He then called for the collection of judgments attributed to ʿAlī and began copying items from it. Whenever he passed something objectionable, he would say, “By Allah, ʿAlī did not judge this way, unless he had gone astray!”

The printed text has dotted khāʾ in وَيُخْفِيَ عَنِّي / وَأُخْفِي عَنْهُ: “withhold something from me / I shall withhold something from him.” Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ reported that most of his teachers read the undotted ḥāʾ (وَيُحْفِيَ / وَأُحْفِي). He favored that reading, discussing reduced or limited narration, or alternatively insistence and thorough enquiry. The author of Maṭāliʿ al-Anwār interpreted the latter root as exceptional solicitude and careful selection.

Abū ʿAmr Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ favored dotted khāʾ: withholding written material that was disputed or liable to cause discord where its disclosure was not required, with oral clarification possible if needed. **Al-Nawawī expressly endorsed the khāʾ reading.** These are transmitted variant readings and interpretations, not permission to suppress obligatory evidence or necessary instruction. The source quotation retains the primary Al-Bushra wording.

Ibn ʿAbbās's emphatic “By Allah, ʿAlī did not judge this way unless he had gone astray” denies the authenticity of the attribution: Ibn ʿAbbās is not asserting that ʿAlī was actually astray.

14. Second report about the attributed judgments of ʿAlī

حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرٌو النَّاقِدُ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ حُجَيْرٍ، عَنْ طَاوُسٍ، قَالَ: أُتِيَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ بِكِتَابٍ فِيهِ قَضَاءُ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، فَمَحَاهُ إِلَّا قَدْرَ، وَأَشَارَ سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ بِذِرَاعِهِ.
Translation: ʿAmr al-Nāqid narrated to us; Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah narrated to us, from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, from Ṭāwūs, who said: “A book containing judgments ascribed to ʿAlī, may Allah be pleased with him, was brought to Ibn ʿAbbās. He erased it except for a certain amount.” Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah indicated that amount with his forearm.

The gesture after “qadr” indicates an approximate small remainder, not an exact number of pages or percentage. Together with the preceding report, it shows why a written attribution to a Companion still requires authentication.

15. A protest against corrupted attributions

حَدَّثَنَا حَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ آدَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ إِدْرِيسَ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، قَالَ: لَمَّا أَحْدَثُوا تِلْكَ الْأَشْيَاءَ بَعْدَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ عَلِيٍّ: «قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ، أَيَّ عِلْمٍ أَفْسَدُوا!».
Translation: Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Ḥulwānī narrated to us; Yaḥyā ibn Ādam narrated to us; Ibn Idrīs narrated to us, from al-Aʿmash, from Abū Isḥāq, who said: “When those things were introduced after ʿAlī, may Allah be pleased with him, one of ʿAlī’s companions said, ‘May Allah contend with them! What knowledge they have corrupted!’”

“Qātalahum Allāh” is a vehement imprecatory expression here, not a judicial command to fight. The statement is attributed to a companion of ʿAlī, not directly to the Prophet; its force is condemnation of corrupt transmission.

16. Al-Mughīrah on more reliable channels

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ خَشْرَمٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ ـ يَعْنِي ابْنَ عَيَّاشٍ ـ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ الْمُغِيرَةَ يَقُولُ: «لَمْ يَكُنْ يَصْدُقُ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ عَنْهُ إِلَّا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ».
Translation: ʿAlī ibn Khashram narrated to us; Abū Bakr—meaning Ibn ʿAyyāsh—informed us: “I heard al-Mughīrah say, ‘No one spoke truthfully about ʿAlī in reporting from him except those among the students of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd.’”

Al-Nawawī records two vocalizations. يَصْدُقُ (ya-ṣduqu: active) means “would speak truthfully about ʿAlī”; يُصَدَّقُ (yu-ṣaddaqu: passive) means “would be believed when reporting about ʿAlī.” The printed original above retains the active reading. He also notes that مِنْ can be read as specifying the class or as grammatically additional.

The speaker is the hadith critic al-Mughīrah ibn Miqsam. His exceptional wording identifies a trusted transmission circle in his historical assessment; it is not a universal judgment that every other narrator necessarily lied, nor is it a statement of Ibn Masʿūd or the Prophet ﷺ.

17. Narrators, wording and written attribution

Three objects of scrutiny emerge:
Transmitter: identify and assess the person conveying a report.
Wording and routes: compare chains and relevant indicators instead of dismissing a report merely because it is unfamiliar.
Written attribution: a document ascribed to a Companion may also need authentication.
The chapter teaches verification of attribution, not an indiscriminate rejection of unfamiliar material.