Rejected Reports, Recognizing Munkar, and Evaluating Narrator Additions

1. The compilation rule for accused transmitters

فَأَمَّا مَا كَانَ مِنْهَا عَنْ قَوْمٍ هُمْ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ مُتَّهَمُونَ، أَوْ عِنْدَ الْأَكْثَرِ مِنْهُمْ، فَلَسْنَا نَتَشَاغَلُ بِتَخْرِيجِ حَدِيثِهِمْ
Translation: As for reports from people accused by the hadith specialists, or by most of them, we shall not occupy ourselves with transmitting their reports in this compilation.

“Accused” here refers to grave doubts about reliability in transmission, not every narrator who ever erred. Muslim is specifying material he will exclude from his selected compilation. “Or by most of them” gives weight to the predominant judgment of qualified critics rather than requiring absolute unanimity.

2. Named transmitters accused of fabrication

كَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مِسْوَرٍ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ الْمَدَائِنِيِّ، وَعَمْرِو بْنِ خَالِدٍ، وَعَبْدِ الْقُدُّوسِ الشَّامِيِّ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الْمَصْلُوبِ، وَغِيَاثِ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَسُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ عَمْرٍو أَبِي دَاوُدَ النَّخَعِيِّ، وَأَشْبَاهِهِمْ مِمَّنِ اتُّهِمَ بِوَضْعِ الْأَحَادِيثِ وَتَوْلِيدِ الْأَخْبَارِ
Translation: Muslim names ʿAbd Allāh b. Miswar Abū Jaʿfar al-Madāʾinī, ʿAmr b. Khālid, ʿAbd al-Quddūs al-Shāmī, Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-Maṣlūb, Ghiyāth b. Ibrāhīm, Sulaymān b. ʿAmr Abū Dāwūd al-Nakhaʿī, and comparable persons accused of inventing hadith and generating reports.

Fabrication means deliberately composing an attributed report, not a mere lapse of memory. Al-Nawawī identifies the criticized ʿAbd al-Quddūs al-Shāmī here as ʿAbd al-Quddūs ibn Ḥabīb. He distinguishes him from ʿAbd al-Quddūs ibn al-Ḥajjāj, whom he describes as trustworthy. A judgment concerning one must not be transferred to the other merely because their names resemble each other.

3. Predominant anomalous reports or errors

وَكَذَلِكَ مَنِ الْغَالِبُ عَلَى حَدِيثِهِ الْمُنْكَرُ أَوِ الْغَلَطُ أَمْسَكْنَا أَيْضًا عَنْ حَدِيثِهِمْ
Translation: Likewise, where anomalous reports or errors predominate in a transmitter’s narrations, we also refrain from transmitting their reports.

This is a separate basis from an accusation of deliberate fabrication. Even absent intentional dishonesty, a narrator whose transmission is habitually unreliable cannot supply the dependable material sought for the collection. Neither category should be confused with a generally precise narrator’s occasional mistake.

Al-Nawawī also rejects the exceptional claim that fabricating reports for exhortation or warning is permissible. The Prophetic prohibition against deliberately attributing falsehood to him is general; a pious intention does not authorize fabrication.

4. Recognizing munkar through comparison

وَعَلَامَةُ الْمُنْكَرِ فِي حَدِيثِ الْمُحَدِّثِ، إِذَا مَا عُرِضَتْ رِوَايَتُهُ لِلْحَدِيثِ عَلَى رِوَايَةِ غَيْرِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحِفْظِ وَالرِّضَا، خَالَفَتْ رِوَايَتُهُ رِوَايَتَهُمْ أَوْ لَمْ تَكَدْ تُوَافِقُهَا
Translation: When a transmitter’s version is compared with reports of reliable, proficient preservers, it opposes theirs or scarcely agrees with them; this is a sign of munkar in his reporting.

Muslim gives an investigative method, not a judgment based on a label alone. Compare relevant transmissions, study the nature and frequency of divergence, and then evaluate. “Scarcely agrees” points to an evident pattern, not every isolated wording variation.

5. When recurrent anomalies justify abandonment

فَإِذَا كَانَ الْأَغْلَبُ مِنْ حَدِيثِهِ كَذَلِكَ كَانَ مَهْجُورَ الْحَدِيثِ غَيْرَ مَقْبُولِهِ وَلَا مُسْتَعْمَلِهِ
Translation: When this characterizes most of the person’s transmission, his reports are abandoned and not relied upon.

“The greater part” is decisive. An occasional problematic report from a generally precise narrator is not the same as a predominantly unreliable output. Al-Nawawī also notes that “munkar” can sometimes be used more broadly for an isolated report even from a precise trustworthy narrator; Muslim’s immediate discussion concerns objectionable and rejected munkar.

6. How a pattern of disagreement is investigated

Suppose five accurate pupils of one teacher transmit a substantially concordant report, while a sixth repeatedly gives materially divergent versions. First examine the type of difference: some variants are sound, whereas a recurring pattern of reversals may indicate weak preservation.

The comparison identifies divergence, not automatically its cause. Audition history, the precision of individual pupils, and other routes must inform which version is better preserved. A solitary addition is not rejected merely for being solitary.

7. The second group of named transmitters

فَمِنْ هَذَا الضَّرْبِ مِنَ الْمُحَدِّثِينَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَرَّرٍ، وَيَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ، وَالْجَرَّاحُ بْنُ الْمِنْهَالِ أَبُو الْعَطُوفِ، وَعَبَّادُ بْنُ كَثِيرٍ، وَحُسَيْنُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ ضُمَيْرَةَ، وَعُمَرُ بْنُ صُهْبَانَ
Translation: The second named group includes ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥarrar, Yaḥyā b. Abī Unaysah, al-Jarrāḥ b. al-Minhāl Abū al-ʿAṭūf, ʿAbbād b. Kathīr, Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḍumayrah, and ʿUmar b. Ṣuhbān.

Here the setting is recurrent munkar transmission, distinct from the preceding list accused of fabrication. Al-Nawawī comments on identification and vocalization of names. Accurate identification is a prerequisite to applying a biographical assessment.

8. Exclusion of comparable transmitters

وَمَنْ نَحَا نَحْوَهُمْ فِي رِوَايَةِ الْمُنْكَرِ مِنَ الْحَدِيثِ، فَلَسْنَا نُعَرِّجُ عَلَى حَدِيثِهِمْ وَلَا نَتَشَاغَلُ بِهِ
Translation: As for those who follow the same course in transmitting anomalous reports, we do not turn to their reports, nor do we occupy ourselves with them.

The rationale follows: acceptance of a narrator’s otherwise singular report depends in part on what his established transmission shows about his accuracy. Thus rejection is grounded in a criterion, not merely in a list of names.

9. The scholarly criterion for accepting solitary material

لِأَنَّ حُكْمَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ، وَالَّذِي يُعْرَفُ مِنْ مَذْهَبِهِمْ فِي قَبُولِ مَا يَتَفَرَّدُ بِهِ الْمُحَدِّثُ مِنَ الْحَدِيثِ
Translation: This is because the scholars’ rule—what is known of their approach to accepting a hadith uniquely narrated by a transmitter—is as follows…

Tafarrud signifies that the report or an element of it is uniquely supplied by that transmitter; it is not by itself a verdict of correctness or error. The key is whether that particular narrator has demonstrated sufficient reliability elsewhere.

10. Establishing precision through concordance

أَنْ يَكُونَ قَدْ شَارَكَ الثِّقَاتِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ وَالْحِفْظِ فِي بَعْضِ مَا رَوَوْا، وَأَمْعَنَ فِي ذَلِكَ عَلَى الْمُوَافَقَةِ لَهُمْ
Translation: He should first have participated with reliable learned preservers in transmitting some of their reports, showing substantial agreement with them.

“Sharing” concerns verifiable common material, while sustained agreement points beyond a chance coincidence. A well-established pattern of concordance provides evidence of precision that can make a later unique addition more credible.

11. The addition of an established accurate narrator

فَإِذَا وُجِدَ كَذَلِكَ، ثُمَّ زَادَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ شَيْئًا لَيْسَ عِنْدَ أَصْحَابِهِ، قُبِلَتْ زِيَادَتُهُ
Translation: If he is found to be such, and then adds something that his fellow transmitters do not have, his addition is accepted.

This is acceptance founded on demonstrated precision. Al-Nawawī distinguishes the addition of an accurate trustworthy transmitter from a rejected anomalous contradiction. The particular chains, substantive content, and stronger opposing evidence still require examination; not every conceivable addition is approved automatically.

12. Applying the criterion in a realistic comparison

Two pupils report from a well-known teacher. One has a substantial established record of agreement with accurate peers, so a well-supported unique addition may be accepted. The other has no demonstrable participation in the teacher’s well-known sound reports but produces many otherwise unknown narrations; he cannot simply receive the same presumption.

Uniqueness alone does not decide the case. The transmitter’s verified precision and the evidence surrounding the particular addition do.

13. The difficult case of al-Zuhrī and Hishām b. ʿUrwah

فَأَمَّا مَنْ تَرَاهُ يَعْمِدُ لِمِثْلِ الزُّهْرِيِّ فِي جَلَالَتِهِ وَكَثْرَةِ أَصْحَابِهِ الْحُفَّاظِ الْمُتْقِنِينَ لِحَدِيثِهِ وَحَدِيثِ غَيْرِهِ، أَوْ لِمِثْلِ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ
Translation: By contrast, consider someone reporting from an eminent teacher such as al-Zuhrī, with numerous precise pupils, or Hishām b. ʿUrwah.

Many of these teachers’ reports were well known and transmitted by skilled companions. There is therefore ample comparative evidence. A person claiming unusual material from such a source requires scrutiny in light of the established corpus and the person’s own participation in it.

14. Why the common transmission base matters

وَحَدِيثُهُمَا عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مَبْسُوطٌ مُشْتَرَكٌ، قَدْ نَقَلَ أَصْحَابُهُمَا عَنْهُمَا حَدِيثَهُمَا عَلَى الِاتِّفَاقِ مِنْهُمْ فِي أَكْثَرِهِ
Translation: Their reports were extensively circulated and shared among scholars; most of their pupils transmitted the larger part in agreement.

A widely attested common corpus supplies a strong comparative baseline. Against that background, a lone claimant’s unfamiliar material must be evaluated by his participation and precision, not only by whether its wording sounds plausible.

15. Why many unknown additions may be rejected

فَيَرْوِي عَنْهُمَا أَوْ عَنْ أَحَدِهِمَا الْعَدَدَ مِنَ الْحَدِيثِ مِمَّا لَا يَعْرِفُهُ أَحَدٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِمَا، وَلَيْسَ مِمَّنْ قَدْ شَارَكَهُمْ فِي الصَّحِيحِ مِمَّا عِنْدَهُمْ، فَغَيْرُ جَائِزٍ قَبُولُ حَدِيثِ هَذَا الضَّرْبِ مِنَ النَّاسِ، وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ
Translation: A person then claims numerous reports from either teacher that no other pupils know, despite having no established participation in their sound common transmissions. Muslim does not accept reports from this type of transmitter.

Two features combine: no proven record of sound concordance and a large volume of otherwise unknown material from an extensively transmitted teacher. This does not condemn every isolated trustworthy report; it identifies a markedly different evidentiary pattern.

16. A method for those pursuing hadith criticism

وَقَدْ شَرَحْنَا مِنْ مَذْهَبِ الْحَدِيثِ وَأَهْلِهِ بَعْضَ مَا يَتَوَجَّهُ بِهِ مَنْ أَرَادَ سَبِيلَ الْقَوْمِ، وَوُفِّقَ لَهَا
Translation: We have explained some of the hadith specialists’ method sufficient to guide one seeking their path.

The lesson establishes no mechanical rule that every isolated report from a widely taught scholar must be rejected. It requires weighing demonstrated concordance, a narrator’s precision, the character of the unique claim, and the wider transmission evidence. This prepares the way for later discussions of defects.

17. Further treatment of defective reports

وَسَنَزِيدُ إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى شَرْحًا وَإِيضَاحًا فِي مَوَاضِعَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ عِنْدَ ذِكْرِ الْأَخْبَارِ الْمُعَلَّلَةِ، إِذَا أَتَيْنَا عَلَيْهَا فِي الْأَمَاكِنِ الَّتِي يَلِيقُ بِهَا الشَّرْحُ وَالْإِيضَاحُ إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى
Translation: We shall, God Most High willing, add further explanation and clarification at places in the book where we discuss reports affected by defects, when we reach the passages suited to that explanation and clarification, God Most High willing.

Muʿallal reports are those affected by a consequential defect established through critical investigation. Not every difference is a defect, nor does the presence of an extra chain automatically remove one. Muslim postpones more detailed illustrations to their proper context rather than asserting a universal verdict here.

18. The practical problem that motivated the compilation

وَبَعْدُ يَرْحَمُكَ اللَّهُ، فَلَوْلَا الَّذِي رَأَيْنَا مِنْ سُوءِ صَنِيعِ كَثِيرٍ مِمَّنْ نَصَبَ نَفْسَهُ مُحَدِّثًا فِيمَا يَلْزَمُهُمْ مِنْ طَرْحِ الْأَحَادِيثِ الضَّعِيفَةِ وَالرِّوَايَاتِ الْمُنْكَرَةِ، وَتَرْكِهِمُ الِاقْتِصَارَ عَلَى الْأَحَادِيثِ الصَّحِيحَةِ الْمَشْهُورَةِ مِمَّا نَقَلَهُ الثِّقَاتُ الْمَعْرُوفُونَ بِالصِّدْقِ وَالْأَمَانَةِ
Translation: If there had not been such bad practice among many who appointed themselves hadith transmitters—failing to set aside weak and anomalous reports and to confine public transmission to sound, well-known reports from trustworthy people—then the requested task would not have been so easy to undertake.

The construction “fa-lawlā … la-mā sahula” expresses a counterfactual condition. Muslim criticizes indiscriminate dissemination despite knowledge of defects, not legitimate scholarly study of weak reports for criticism and analysis.

19. Circulating defective reports despite knowing the problem

بَعْدَ مَعْرِفَتِهِمْ وَإِقْرَارِهِمْ بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ أَنَّ كَثِيرًا مِمَّا يَقْذِفُونَ بِهِ إِلَى الْأَغْبِيَاءِ مِنَ النَّاسِ هُوَ مُسْتَنْكَرٌ، وَمَنْقُولٌ عَنْ قَوْمٍ غَيْرِ مَرْضِيِّينَ
Translation: They knew and admitted that much of what they cast toward uninformed audiences was objectionable and came through people not approved as reliable transmitters.

“After their knowledge and their acknowledgement with their own tongues” is central: these transmitters knew and admitted the defects. Muslim criticizes their uncritical circulation of such reports among people unable to recognize those defects. Specialists’ citation of the same reports for careful investigation and criticism is a distinct activity.

20. Earlier critics and the conclusion of the conditional statement

مِمَّنْ ذَمَّ الرِّوَايَةَ عَنْهُمْ أَئِمَّةُ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ، مِثْلُ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ، وَشُعْبَةَ بْنِ الْحَجَّاجِ، وَسُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، وَيَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الْقَطَّانِ، وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ مَهْدِيٍّ، وَغَيْرِهِمْ مِنَ الْأَئِمَّةِ، لَمَا سَهُلَ عَلَيْنَا الِانْتِصَابُ لِمَا سَأَلْتَ مِنَ التَّمْيِيزِ وَالتَّحْصِيلِ
Translation: Imams such as Mālik b. Anas, Shuʿbah, Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī, and others had criticized transmitting through such persons. Without the described problem, undertaking the requested discrimination and collection would not have seemed so easy.

The named critics establish the expert background. Tamyīz denotes differentiating dependable from defective reports, and taḥṣīl the careful acquisition or gathering of material. The conclusion “la-mā sahula” completes the earlier “fa-lawlā” construction.

21. Conclusion of Imam Muslim’s opening statement

وَلَكِنْ مِنْ أَجْلِ مَا أَعْلَمْنَاكَ مِنْ نَشْرِ الْقَوْمِ الْأَخْبَارَ الْمُنْكَرَةَ بِالْأَسَانِيدِ الضِّعَافِ الْمَجْهُولَةِ، وَقَذْفِهِمْ بِهَا إِلَى الْعَوَامِّ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْرِفُونَ عُيُوبَهَا، خَفَّ عَلَى قُلُوبِنَا إِجَابَتُكَ إِلَى مَا سَأَلْتَ
Translation: But because of what we have told you about people spreading anomalous reports through weak, unknown chains and casting them before the public, who do not recognize their defects, it became easier upon our hearts to respond to what you requested.

The opening statement closes by connecting critical selection with the public consequences of unreliable attribution. The following original chapter begins the scriptural argument for transmitting from trustworthy narrators and avoiding liars; it belongs to Level 005.