LessonsHistorical Examples of Muʿanʿan Transmission and the Conclusion of Muslim’s IntroductionQuiz

وَهِيَ فِي زَعْمِ مَنْ حَكَيْنَا قَوْلَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَاهِيَةٌ مُهْمَلَةٌ حَتَّى يُصِيبَ سَمَاعَ الرَّاوِي عَمَّنْ رَوَى، وَلَوْ ذَهَبْنَا نُعَدِّدُ الْأَخْبَارَ الصِّحَاحَ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِمَّنْ يَهِنُ بِزَعْمِ هَذَا الْقَائِلِ وَنُحْصِيهَا، لَعَجَزْنَا عَنْ تَقَصِّي ذِكْرِهَا وَإِحْصَائِهَا كُلِّهَا، وَلَكِنَّا أَحْبَبْنَا أَنْ نَنْصِبَ مِنْهَا عَدَدًا يَكُونُ سِمَةً لِمَا سَكَتْنَا عَنْهُ مِنْهَا.
Translation: Yet under the opposing criterion these reports would remain weak and unusable until hearing is independently found. Muslim says that many chains accepted by specialists would suffer the same fate, so he gives representative cases rather than attempting an exhaustive list.

The Arabic phrase «وَاهِيَةٌ مُهْمَلَةٌ» describes their status *under the opponent’s rule*, not Muslim’s own assessment of these chains.

Al-Nawawī specifically objects to «وَاهِيَةٌ» (“extremely feeble”) and says «ضَعِيفَةٌ» (“weak”) would have been preferable. The opponent’s additional condition could make a report insufficient as proof under that approach without implying that the opponent judged its chain to be at the very extreme of weakness. Muslim is drawing out the consequence of the rule; Nawawī is criticizing the strength of the term used to express it.

Opening interactive controls...

The Broad Consequence of the Opposing Rule

Historical Examples of Muʿanʿan Transmission and the Conclusion of Muslim’s Introduction

وَهِيَ فِي زَعْمِ مَنْ حَكَيْنَا قَوْلَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَاهِيَةٌ مُهْمَلَةٌ حَتَّى يُصِيبَ سَمَاعَ الرَّاوِي عَمَّنْ رَوَى، وَلَوْ ذَهَبْنَا نُعَدِّدُ الْأَخْبَارَ الصِّحَاحَ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِمَّنْ يَهِنُ بِزَعْمِ هَذَا الْقَائِلِ وَنُحْصِيهَا، لَعَجَزْنَا عَنْ تَقَصِّي ذِكْرِهَا وَإِحْصَائِهَا كُلِّهَا، وَلَكِنَّا أَحْبَبْنَا أَنْ نَنْصِبَ مِنْهَا عَدَدًا يَكُونُ سِمَةً لِمَا سَكَتْنَا عَنْهُ مِنْهَا.
Translation: Yet under the opposing criterion these reports would remain weak and unusable until hearing is independently found. Muslim says that many chains accepted by specialists would suffer the same fate, so he gives representative cases rather than attempting an exhaustive list.

The Arabic phrase «وَاهِيَةٌ مُهْمَلَةٌ» describes their status *under the opponent’s rule*, not Muslim’s own assessment of these chains.

Al-Nawawī specifically objects to «وَاهِيَةٌ» (“extremely feeble”) and says «ضَعِيفَةٌ» (“weak”) would have been preferable. The opponent’s additional condition could make a report insufficient as proof under that approach without implying that the opponent judged its chain to be at the very extreme of weakness. Muslim is drawing out the consequence of the rule; Nawawī is criticizing the strength of the term used to express it.