Reports 84–92; Muslim’s rationale, critical judgments of Mālik and other scholars, and al-Nawawī’s principles Read the bilingual lesson for The Necessity and Boundaries of Narrator Criticism and test your understanding with a focused quiz.
Lesson
1. Criticism of a Narrator versus Backbiting
حَدَّثَنِي عَمْرُو بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، وَحَسَنٌ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ، كِلَاهُمَا عَنْ عَفَّانَ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ، قَالَ: كُنَّا عِنْدَ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ابْنِ عُلَيَّةَ، فَحَدَّثَ رَجُلٌ عَنْ رَجُلٍ، فَقُلْتُ: إِنَّ هَذَا لَيْسَ بِثَبْتٍ. قَالَ: فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ: اغْتَبْتَهُ. قَالَ إِسْمَاعِيلُ: مَا اغْتَابَهُ، وَلَكِنَّهُ حَكَمَ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِثَبْتٍ.
Translation: ʿAmr b. ʿAlī and al-Ḥasan al-Ḥulwānī relate through ʿAffān: while with Ismāʿīl b. ʿUlayyah, a man narrated from another. ʿAffān said that the transmitter was not firm/reliable. Someone accused him of backbiting, but Ismāʿīl replied: “He did not backbite him; he gave a judgment that he is not firm.”
“Not thabt” is a judgment on reliability and precision in transmitting hadith, not an unrestricted assault on character. Al-Nawawī treats qualified criticism as permissible—and sometimes necessary—for protecting transmission, while its evidentiary basis and purpose remain important.
Al-Nawawī reports scholarly agreement that relevant criticism is lawful and, where safeguarding the religion makes disclosure necessary, obligatory. A qualified critic must disclose the established defect to those needing the information, only to the extent required; the same disparagement outside that need may be prohibited backbiting.
2. Mālik’s Criticism of Three Transmitters
وَحَدَّثَنَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ الدَّارِمِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بْنُ عُمَرَ، قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَنَسٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الَّذِي يَرْوِي عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، فَقَالَ: لَيْسَ بِثِقَةٍ. وَسَأَلْتُ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَنَسٍ عَنْ أَبِي الْحُوَيْرِثِ، فَقَالَ: لَيْسَ بِثِقَةٍ. وَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ شُعْبَةَ الَّذِي رَوَى عَنْهُ ابْنُ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ، فَقَالَ: لَيْسَ بِثِقَةٍ.
Translation: Abū Jaʿfar al-Dārimī narrated from Bishr b. ʿUmar: Bishr asked Mālik b. Anas about Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, who reports from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib; Mālik answered, “He is not trustworthy.” Bishr also asked him about Abū al-Ḥuwayrith, and Mālik answered, “He is not trustworthy.” Then he asked about the Shuʿbah from whom Ibn Abī Dhiʾb narrated; Mālik again answered, “He is not trustworthy.”
These are three distinct inquiries, each answered with a judgment of non-reliability in transmission. The assessment concerns hadith evidence, not automatically every aspect of the person; its grounds and corroboration remain subjects of scholarly inquiry.
3. Two Further Transmitters and the Scope of Judgment
وَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ صَالِحٍ مَوْلَى التَّوْأَمَةِ، فَقَالَ: لَيْسَ بِثِقَةٍ. وَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ حَرَامِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ، فَقَالَ: لَيْسَ بِثِقَةٍ. وَسَأَلْتُ مَالِكًا عَنْ هَؤُلَاءِ الْخَمْسَةِ، فَقَالَ: لَيْسُوا بِثِقَةٍ فِي حَدِيثِهِمْ. وَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ آخَرَ نَسِيتُ اسْمَهُ، فَقَالَ: هَلْ رَأَيْتَهُ فِي كُتُبِي؟ قُلْتُ: لَا. قَالَ: لَوْ كَانَ ثِقَةً لَرَأَيْتَهُ فِي كُتُبِي.
Translation: Bishr asked Mālik about Ṣāliḥ, the freedman of al-Tawʾamah, and Mālik said, “He is not trustworthy.” He asked about Ḥarām b. ʿUthmān, and Mālik again said, “He is not trustworthy.” Bishr then asked him about all five; Mālik replied, “They are not trustworthy in their hadith.” Bishr asked about another man whose name he had forgotten. Mālik asked, “Have you seen him in my books?” Bishr replied, “No.” Mālik said, “If he had been trustworthy, you would have seen him in my books.”
“In their hadith” limits the judgment to transmission, not every personal quality. Al-Nawawī explains that Mālik’s remark about his own books supports an inference about Mālik’s own favorable evaluation of a narrator he deliberately included; it does not establish every other scholar’s approval or a universal rule for all books.
4. Ṣāliḥ Mawlā al-Tawʾamah: Time-Sensitive Criticism
Mālik called Ṣāliḥ mawlā al-Tawʾamah “not trustworthy.” As al-Nawawī records, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn described him as “trustworthy, an authority” but explained that Mālik and Sufyān al-Thawrī encountered him after his faculties deteriorated; Ibn Abī Dhiʾb heard him earlier. Sound early transmission and disputed reports from a period of confusion must not automatically receive the same grade.
Ibn ʿAdī made room for the earlier routes of Ibn Abī Dhiʾb, Ibn Jurayj and Ziyād b. Saʿd. Abū Zurʿah called Ṣāliḥ weak, and Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said he was not strong. Ibn Ḥibbān expressed the more cautious view that late and early material had become mixed. These are specific, distinct evaluations, not a single unanimous verdict.
For example, a route through Ibn Abī Dhiʾb’s early hearing cannot automatically be equated with a pupil’s later hearing merely because both contain “from Ṣāliḥ.” Establish the pupil, time of hearing and supporting routes before grading either report.
5. The Criticism of Shuraḥbīl b. Saʿd
وَحَدَّثَنِي الْفَضْلُ بْنُ سَهْلٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ مَعِينٍ، حَدَّثَنَا حَجَّاجٌ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ، عَنْ شُرَحْبِيلَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، وَكَانَ مُتَّهَمًا.
Translation: Al-Faḍl b. Sahl reports through Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, Ḥajjāj, and Ibn Abī Dhiʾb from Shuraḥbīl b. Saʿd, who is described here as “accused” in transmission.
“He was accused” refers to Shuraḥbīl. The phrase records a critical assessment, not an independently documented act of fabrication for every narration attributed to him.
6. Ibn al-Mubārak’s Severe Judgment
وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ قُهْزَاذَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا إِسْحَاقَ الطَّالَقَانِيَّ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ يَقُولُ: لَوْ خُيِّرْتُ بَيْنَ أَنْ أَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ وَبَيْنَ أَنْ أَلْقَى عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مُحَرَّرٍ لَاخْتَرْتُ أَنْ أَلْقَاهُ ثُمَّ أَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ، فَلَمَّا رَأَيْتُهُ كَانَتْ بَعْرَةٌ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِنْهُ.
Translation: Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Quhzādh transmits Ibn al-Mubārak’s severe remark: he had greatly desired to meet ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥarrar, but after seeing him he expressed extreme aversion, saying even a piece of dung was preferable.
The report shows how sharply a critic’s assessment could change after direct acquaintance. It records historical severity, not a general permission to use gratuitously insulting language in criticism.
7. Family Ties Are Not Evidence of Reliability
وَحَدَّثَنِي الْفَضْلُ بْنُ سَهْلٍ، حَدَّثَنَا وَلِيدُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرٍو: قَالَ زَيْدٌ، يَعْنِي ابْنَ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ: لَا تَأْخُذُوا عَنْ أَخِي.
Translation: Al-Faḍl b. Sahl reports through Walīd b. Ṣāliḥ that ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAmr transmitted Zayd b. Abī Unaysah’s warning: “Do not take reports from my brother.”
“My brother” establishes a family relationship, not reliability in transmission. Close kinship cannot substitute for evidence about how someone narrates.
8. An Explicit Accusation Concerning Yaḥyā b. Abī Unaysah
حَدَّثَنِي أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الدَّوْرَقِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ السَّلَامِ الْوَابِصِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ الرَّقِّيُّ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ: كَانَ يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ كَذَّابًا.
Translation: Aḥmad al-Dawraqī transmits through ʿAbd al-Salām al-Wābiṣī and ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar al-Raqqī the statement of ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAmr: “Yaḥyā b. Abī Unaysah was an egregious/habitual liar.”
This second report supplies the intensive critical judgment *kadhdhāb* (not merely an isolated mistake), rather than merely advising against transmission. Its force should not be softened, but it remains a reported critical verdict about a person, not an automatic separate examination of every matn.
9. Farqad: Piety versus Hadith Expertise
حَدَّثَنِي أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: ذُكِرَ فَرْقَدٌ عِنْدَ أَيُّوبَ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّ فَرْقَدًا لَيْسَ صَاحِبَ حَدِيثٍ.
Translation: Aḥmad b. Ibrāhīm relates through Sulaymān b. Ḥarb and Ḥammād b. Zayd that when Farqad was mentioned before Ayyūb, he remarked: “Farqad is not a person of hadith.”
“Not a scholar of hadith” concerns competence and precision, not necessarily integrity. Al-Nawawī distinguishes Farqad’s reputation for asceticism from his standing in transmitting reports.
10. Graduations of Weakness in Critical Evaluation
وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ بِشْرٍ الْعَبْدِيُّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ يَحْيَى بْنَ سَعِيدٍ الْقَطَّانَ، ذُكِرَ عِنْدَهُ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ اللَّيْثِيُّ، فَضَعَّفَهُ جِدًّا. فَقِيلَ لِيَحْيَى: أَضْعَفُ مِنْ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ عَطَاءٍ؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ. ثُمَّ قَالَ: مَا كُنْتُ أَرَى أَنَّ أَحَدًا يَرْوِي عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ.
Translation: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Bishr heard Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān strongly weaken Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUbayd b. ʿUmayr al-Laythī. Asked whether he was even weaker than Yaʿqūb b. ʿAṭāʾ, he answered yes and expressed surprise that anyone narrated from him.
The report illustrates comparative levels of weakness: “weak” is not a single uniform grade. The comparison signals severity while other transmission routes still require their own assessment.
11. Judgments of al-Qaṭṭān and Ibn al-Mubārak
حَدَّثَنِي بِشْرُ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ يَحْيَى بْنَ سَعِيدٍ الْقَطَّانَ، ضَعَّفَ حَكِيمَ بْنَ جُبَيْرٍ وَعَبْدَ الْأَعْلَى، وَضَعَّفَ يَحْيَى بْنَ مُوسَى بْنِ دِينَارٍ، قَالَ: حَدِيثُهُ رِيحٌ. وَضَعَّفَ مُوسَى بْنَ دِهْقَانَ وَعِيسَى بْنَ أَبِي عِيسَى الْمَدَنِيَّ. قَالَ: وَسَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عِيسَى يَقُولُ: قَالَ لِيَ ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ: إِذَا قَدِمْتَ عَلَى جَرِيرٍ فَاكْتُبْ عِلْمَهُ كُلَّهُ إِلَّا حَدِيثَ ثَلَاثَةٍ، لَا تَكْتُبْ حَدِيثَ عُبَيْدَةَ بْنِ مُعَتِّبٍ، وَالسَّرِيِّ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ.
Translation: Bishr b. al-Ḥakam reports Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān weakening Ḥakīm b. Jubayr, ʿAbd al-Aʿlā, Mūsā b. Dīnār, Mūsā b. Dihqān, and ʿĪsā b. Abī ʿĪsā al-Madanī. He said of Mūsā’s reports, “His hadith is wind”—an expression of instability. The report also transmits Ibn al-Mubārak’s advice to write from Jarīr but exclude reports of ʿUbaydah b. Muʿattib, al-Sarī b. Ismāʿīl, and Muḥammad b. Sālim.
The Al-Bushra reading “wa-ḍaʿʿafa Yaḥyā **bna** Mūsā b. Dīnār” includes an extra *bna*. Al-Nawawī explicitly identifies it as a transmitted textual error: the intended syntax has Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān as critic and Mūsā b. Dīnār as the criticized narrator. The primary text is preserved verbatim while the grammatical problem is explained.
“His hadith is wind” is metaphorical criticism of unreliability.
12. Muslim’s Summary of the Critical Precedents
قَالَ مُسْلِمٌ: وَأَشْبَاهُ مَا ذَكَرْنَا مِنْ كَلَامِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ فِي مُتَّهَمِي رُوَاةِ الْحَدِيثِ وَإِخْبَارِهِمْ عَنْ مَعَايِبِهِمْ كَثِيرٌ، يَطُولُ الْكِتَابُ بِذِكْرِهِ عَلَى اسْتِقْصَائِهِ، وَفِيمَا ذَكَرْنَا كِفَايَةٌ لِمَنْ تَفَهَّمَ وَعَقَلَ مَذْهَبَ الْقَوْمِ فِيمَا قَالُوا مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَبَيَّنُوا.
Translation: Muslim says that examples of scholarly statements about suspect transmitters and their defects are numerous; listing all of them exhaustively would make the book too long. The selected precedents suffice for understanding the method of hadith critics.
This is Muslim’s own conclusion, not a statement of al-Nawawī. The collected precedents establish narrator evaluation as a recognized scholarly practice rather than a mere exchange of personal accusations.
13. Muslim: Why Criticism Is Necessary
وَإِنَّمَا أَلْزَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمُ الْكَشْفَ عَنْ مَعَايِبِ رُوَاةِ الْحَدِيثِ وَنَاقِلِي الْأَخْبَارِ، وَأَفْتَوْا بِذَلِكَ حِينَ سُئِلُوا، لِمَا فِيهِ مِنْ عَظِيمِ الْخَطَرِ؛ إِذِ الْأَخْبَارُ فِي أَمْرِ الدِّينِ إِنَّمَا تَأْتِي بِتَحْلِيلٍ أَوْ تَحْرِيمٍ، أَوْ أَمْرٍ أَوْ نَهْيٍ، أَوْ تَرْغِيبٍ أَوْ تَرْهِيبٍ.
Translation: Hadith scholars therefore obliged themselves to disclose the defects of hadith transmitters and conveyors of reports, and they gave their judgments about those defects when asked, because of the grave danger involved: reports dealing with religion may declare something lawful or unlawful, command or forbid an act, encourage good conduct or warn against wrongdoing.
Muslim’s argument identifies the practical need behind critical disclosure: a person treating a report as religious evidence must be told of relevant known defects. The scholars’ answer to a question is a responsible assessment, not aimless personal criticism.
14. Muslim: Concealing a Known Defect
فَإِذَا كَانَ الرَّاوِي لَهَا لَيْسَ بِمَعْدِنٍ لِلصِّدْقِ وَالْأَمَانَةِ، ثُمَّ أَقْدَمَ عَلَى الرِّوَايَةِ عَنْهُ مَنْ قَدْ عَرَفَهُ، وَلَمْ يُبَيِّنْ مَا فِيهِ لِغَيْرِهِ مِمَّنْ جَهِلَ مَعْرِفَتَهُ، كَانَ آثِمًا بِفِعْلِهِ ذَلِكَ غَاشًّا لِعَوَامِّ الْمُسْلِمِينَ؛ إِذْ لَا يُؤْمَنُ عَلَى بَعْضِ مَنْ سَمِعَ تِلْكَ الْأَخْبَارَ أَنْ يَسْتَعْمِلَهَا أَوْ يَسْتَعْمِلَ بَعْضَهَا، وَلَعَلَّهَا أَوْ أَكْثَرَهَا أَكَاذِيبُ لَا أَصْلَ لَهَا، مَعَ أَنَّ الْأَخْبَارَ الصِّحَاحَ مِنْ رِوَايَةِ الثِّقَاتِ وَأَهْلِ الْقَنَاعَةِ أَكْثَرُ مِنْ أَنْ يُضْطَرَّ إِلَى نَقْلِ مَنْ لَيْسَ بِثِقَةٍ وَلَا مَقْنَعٍ.
Translation: If the person transmitting such reports is not a source of truthfulness and trustworthiness, and someone who knows his condition nevertheless undertakes to narrate from him without disclosing his defects to others who do not know them, that person sins by doing so and deceives the general Muslim public. For it cannot be ruled out that some who hear those reports will put them, or part of them, into practice, though those reports—or most of them—may be baseless falsehoods. Furthermore, sound reports transmitted by trustworthy narrators and people in whom confidence can be placed are numerous enough that there is no need to depend on someone neither trustworthy nor a source of confidence.
The warning targets a person who knows a relevant defect yet withholds it from listeners unfamiliar with it while presenting the report for reliance. Recording a weak route openly for technical comparison is not the same act.
15. Accumulating Weak Reports for Prestige
وَلَا أَحْسِبُ كَثِيرًا مِمَّنْ يُعَرِّجُ مِنَ النَّاسِ عَلَى مَا وَصَفْنَا مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثِ الضِّعَافِ وَالْأَسَانِيدِ الْمَجْهُولَةِ، وَيَعْتَدُّ بِرِوَايَتِهَا بَعْدَ مَعْرِفَتِهِ بِمَا فِيهَا مِنَ التَّوَهُّنِ وَالضَّعْفِ، إِلَّا أَنَّ الَّذِي يَحْمِلُهُ عَلَى رِوَايَتِهَا وَالِاعْتِدَادِ بِهَا إِرَادَةُ التَّكَثُّرِ بِذَلِكَ عِنْدَ الْعَوَامِّ، وَلِأَنْ يُقَالَ: مَا أَكْثَرَ مَا جَمَعَ فُلَانٌ مِنَ الْحَدِيثِ وَأَلَّفَ مِنَ الْعَدَدِ.
Translation: As for many who turn toward the weak hadith reports and unknown chains we have described, and still count their transmission as creditable after learning of the frailty and weakness they contain, I think they are driven to narrate and count them chiefly by the desire to multiply their collections in the eyes of ordinary people, so that it will be said, “How many hadith reports so-and-so collected, and what an enormous number he compiled!”
The target is not the size of a collection itself, but treating known weakness as creditable and seeking public acclaim from the total. A qualified scholar’s openly annotated collection of weak routes for comparison, corroboration or defect analysis serves a different purpose.
16. Muslim’s Final Warning
وَمَنْ ذَهَبَ فِي الْعِلْمِ هَذَا الْمَذْهَبَ، وَسَلَكَ هَذَا الطَّرِيقَ، فَلَا نَصِيبَ لَهُ فِيهِ، وَكَانَ بِأَنْ يُسَمَّى جَاهِلًا أَوْلَى مِنْ أَنْ يُنْسَبَ إِلَى عِلْمٍ.
Translation: Whoever adopts this approach to knowledge has no proper share in it and is more deserving of being called ignorant than being credited with scholarship.
The final rebuke concerns irresponsible promotion despite known weakness, not merely discussing a rare or difficult chain for scholarly scrutiny.
17. Must a Critic State the Cause of Jarḥ?
Al-Nawawī records disagreement over whether a qualified critic’s general judgment “weak” suffices or must state the cause. Al-Shāfiʿī and many others required a reason: a critic might regard something as a defect that others would not. Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī and others allowed a competent critic’s unelaborated jarḥ.
Where evidence conflicts, the critic’s expertise, the reason for the assessment, and other testimony require examination; one vague label should not be treated as a universal automatic rule.
18. Conflicting Jarḥ and Taʿdīl
Al-Nawawī explains the majority preference for established jarḥ over general taʿdīl because a critic may know a particular defect unknown to the evaluator who praised the narrator. Mere numbers of critics do not settle the question.
The preference is not automatic for every obscure, unsupported, or irrelevant accusation. The evidence and its cause must still be evaluated.
19. Does a Trustworthy Narrator’s Transmission Authenticate an Unknown Teacher?
Scholars differed whether a trustworthy critic’s narration from an otherwise unknown shaykh establishes that shaykh’s uprightness. Al-Nawawī reports that the majority reject automatic accreditation from bare narration. The narrator may have recorded the unknown source only for **iʿtibār or istishhād** (comparison/corroboration), rather than using that route as an independent **ḥujjah**; others allowed a stronger inference of approval.
For example, including an unknown shaykh’s report among routes being compared does not by itself establish that the route proves a ruling; express accreditation is a separate evidentiary act. Al-Nawawī reads Mālik’s remark about his books as evidence of **Mālik’s own** favorable assessment of someone he deliberately includes, not a declaration binding every other critic.
20. Three Different Objects of Critical Judgment
**Not trustworthy in his hadith:** a judgment on a narrator’s transmitted reliability.
**Not a hadith specialist:** a comment on technical expertise.
**Unknown chain:** a defect of identification or connectivity affecting a particular transmission.
The critic must identify whether the judgment concerns a person, a particular period in his career, or an individual route; otherwise a valid criticism may be overextended.
21. Why Scholars Recorded Weak Routes
Al-Nawawī gives distinct reasons why hadith specialists recorded some reports from transmitters whom they criticized.
**First**, a weak route can be written down for **iʿtibār and istishhād**, to compare or corroborate chains, without being an independent proof. **Second**, one generally weak narrator may preserve particular material that deserves separate examination through other routes. The reported statement of Sufyān al-Thawrī that he could distinguish that transmitter’s true reports from his false ones does not authenticate every report in advance.
**Third**, the commentary allows limited leniency with certain non-fabricated reports about **exhortation, warning and virtues**, where the underlying conduct already has an established basis in religion. This is not license to use a weak report independently to institute a legal obligation, permit or prohibit an act. Fabricated (**mawḍūʿ**) material is excluded. **Fourth**, a scholar can preserve a weak route while disclosing its defect, without presenting it unqualified as a binding rule.
**Compare:** “This additional chain is recorded with its weakness stated” is scholarly comparison; “This weak chain independently proves an obligation” falsely inflates its evidentiary weight.
22. Categories of False Attribution and Changed Chains
In the categories reported from Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, identify **what was falsified and whether it was intentional**. A person may deliberately attribute to the Prophet ﷺ words he did not say. The commentary mentions different motives: hostility to religion, ignorant invention of merits or exhortations, partisanship, and worldly advantage. These are categories, not established motives of every named criticized transmitter.
A second form deliberately **invents or changes an isnād** for a text. Other examples are falsely claiming “I heard” a report never heard, or taking a Companion’s or another wise person’s saying and ascribing it to the Prophet ﷺ. Such intentional fabrication of attribution is distinct from a merely poor memory.
By contrast, an **unintentional error**, a mistaken chain, or confused recall does not itself prove deliberate invention. The critical vocabulary—suspected, weak, error-prone, or an habitual liar—must be supported by the particular evidence; these judgments cannot be treated as interchangeable.
23. Repentance and the Future Acceptance of Transmission
Al-Nawawī records disagreement over **future transmission after a person who deliberately lied in hadith has genuinely repented**. His preferred and apparently stronger position allows eventual acceptance after proper repentance, as with other serious transgressions, provided reliability is established. The opposing position permanently refuses later transmission because deliberate false attribution to the Prophet ﷺ warrants particular severity and deterrence. Neither view turns an earlier fabricated report into authentic Prophetic speech.
Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ also distinguishes cases of untruthfulness in ordinary conversation, material error or confusion, and intentional false reporting in hadith. A demonstrably mistaken transmitter is not automatically a fabricator. For a proven offender, sincerity of repentance and subsequent accuracy and integrity remain evidentiary questions; accepting an individual later report is not automatic merely because repentance is claimed.
**Application:** Repentance may change the narrator’s future standing according to the scholarly positions and the evidence; it cannot retroactively convert a report knowingly invented before repentance into a genuine hadith.