The critical authority that accompanied the movement of narration

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The critical authority that accompanied the movement of narration

 

It has been mentioned previously that the critical authority was inseparable from the movement of narrations in the era of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and that some of the Tabi’in were among those who participated in the critical movement. They criticised some of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum in some of their narrations and redressed them. The critical movement remained strong in the time of the Tabi’in. In fact, it was even stronger, because whoever had the courage to criticise a Companion or disagree with him in his fatwa will not hesitate to contradict and denounce other Tabi’in like him.

Criticism in the era of the Tabi’in can be understood by considering several things:

First: The important statements that passed previously from the students of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum who were devoted to them, which indicate that those students knew the narrations of the Companion and mastered them, as if they were standard models against which the narrations were analysed. Among these are the previous statements of the students of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, such as Abu Salih, who said:

 

ما أحد يحدث عن أبي هريرة إلا وأنا أعلم صادقا هو أم كاذبا

No one narrates anything from Abu Hurairah, except that I know whether he is truthful or dishonest.^[1]

 

Likewise, the previous authentication of Nafi’, Ibn ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhuma freed slave, of a hadith narrated by Salim from his father ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and his statement thus:

 

صدق نافع هو كما قال سلوه فإنه أعلمنا بحديث ابن عمر

Nafi’ spoke the truth. It is as he said it. Ask him, for he is the most learned amongst us regarding the ahadith of Ibn ‘Umar.^[2]

 

Similarly, the statement of ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair regarding the Hadith of Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha:

 

لقد رأيتني قبل موت عائشة بأربع حجج وأنا أقول لو ماتت اليوم ما ندمت على حديث عندها إلا وقد وعيته

I remember myself four Hajj (years) before Aisha’s radiya Llahu ‘anha death saying, “If she died today, I would not regret over any hadith of hers except that I have memorised it.”^[3]

 

This means that some of the Companions’ students developed a special proficiency in the ahadith of their teacher, with which they would distinguish the authentic from the weak, and the incorrect from the correct. This is based on lengthy association and extensive knowledge of the Sheikh. It is natural that someone who is attached to a Sheikh for many years would know his thoughts, views, and sayings, and be a well-known reference for what is authentic from that teacher’s narrations and what is not.

Criticism based on the standard of the Sheikh’s students remained essential in all stages of the narration. When Ibn al Madini—the great critic and teacher of al Bukhari—embarked on giving preference among the students of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he mentioned his well-known and strongest students, and said:

 

أصحاب أبي هريرة هؤلاء الستة سعيد بن المسيب وأبو سلمة والأعرج وأبو صالح ومحمد بن سيرين وطاوس

There were six students of Abu Hurairah: Sa’id ibn al Musayyab, Abu Salamah, al A’raj, Abu Salih, Muhammad ibn Sirin, and Tawus.

 

Thereafter, he took to one of Abu Hurairah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu students and compared his narrations with theirs. He states:

 

وكان همام بن منبه يشبه حديثه حديثهم إلا أحرفا

Hammam ibn Munabbih’s ahadith were similar to theirs, except for a few words.^[4]

 

He recognised Hammam’s errors—even if they were few and in few things—only by comparing them to what these seniors narrate from Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which means that criticism was clearly effective in that class.

Second: In addition to this, most of the Tabi’in, even if they were very devoted to a particular Companion and learned well from him, did not usually confine themselves to receiving from him only. They would accompany several Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, acquire from them, discuss them, and compare their sayings and narrations. If they found any differences, they would question and investigate, as was shown in the case of Hajj and the Tabi’in’s alternating in asking questions between Ibn ‘Umar and Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhuma etc., as mentioned previously.

Variety of sources of reception are important for distinction and consideration, especially when a strong scholarly critical logic is combined to that.

Third: These followers were not among those who complimented each other scholarly or religiously. Their texts in criticising and objecting to other’s sayings were many. In fact, the fitnah and wars that arose in that era, which they participated in, were many as well, like the uprising of Ibn al Ash’ath, the differences of people over it, and the well-known revolts against the Umayyads at that time. In fact, some of the senior Tabi’in among Ibn Mas’ud’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu students were fighting in the army of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whereas there were Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, some prominent ones, in the other armies. Among those Tabi’in, was ‘Alqamah ibn Qais al Nakha’i, who participated with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin, and he fought until ‘his sword was stained with blood.’^[5] On the opposing side, ‘Abdul Rahman ibn al Harith ibn Hisham^[6]—who was one of Aisha’s radiya Llahu ‘anha students—participated in the Battle of the Camel in her army, fighting ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu army.^[7] Someone like ‘Alqamah and others who participated with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in his wars and like ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Hisham and others who were in Aisha’s radiya Llahu ‘anha army, would never be afraid and fearful of criticising other Tabi’in similar to them, if they see them err in a hadith or fatwa.

However, despite all this, the criticism by some Tabi’in of others, which has filtered to us, was not as abundant as that which appeared in the generation of the followers of the Tabi’in and those after them. The reason for this is that criticism at that time was criticism out of necessity, not systematic, organised criticism that included most of the narrators and narrations and that could be traced everywhere. The meaning of criticism out of necessity is that the critic did not examine the ahadith and narrators except when he saw a need for it, then he would question it, or there was a need to discuss it.^[8] The basis of Muslims’ dealings with each other was mutual trust, especially in the first century, and in the classes of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Tabi’in. Therefore, the Tabi’in found only a few individuals, the likes of al Harith al A’war, ‘Asim ibn Damrah, and al Mukhtar al Thaqafi,^[9] whose narrations they could criticise. Likewise, only a few critics were occupied with that.

Hafiz al Dhahabi stated this by saying:

 

فأول‏ من زكى وجرح عند انقراض عصر الصحابة الشعبي وابن سيرين ونحوهما حفظ عنهم توثيق أناس وتضعيف آخرين وسبب قلة الضعفاء في ذلك الزمان قلة متبوعيهم من الضعفاء إذ أكثر المتبوعين صحابة عدول وأكثرهم من غير الصحابة بل عامتهم ثقات صادقون يعون ما يروون وهم كبار التابعين فيوجد فيهم الواحد بعد الواحد فيه مقال كالحارث الأعور وعاصم بن ضمرة ونحوهما نعم فيهم عدة من رؤوس أهل البدع من الخوارج والشيعة والقدرية نسأل الله العافية كعبد الرحمن بن ملجم والمختار بن أبي عبيد الكذاب ومعبد الجهني ثم كان في المئة الثانية في أوائلها جماعة من الضعفاء من أوساط التابعين وصغارهم ممن تكلم فيهم من قبل حفظهم أو لبدعة فيهم كعطية العوفي وفرقد السبخي وجابر الجعفي وأبي هارون العبدي فلما كان عند انقراض عامة التابعين في حدود الخمسين ومئة تكلم طائفة من الجهابذة في التوثيق والتضعيف فقال أبو حنيفة ما رأيت أكذب من جابر الجعفي وضعف الأعمش جماعة ووثق آخرين وانتقد الرجال شعبة ومالك

The first to practice Hadith criticism after the termination of the Companions’ era, were al Sha’bi, Ibn Sirin, and their like. Tawthiq (approval) of some people and tad’if (disapproval) of others began from them. The reason for the scarcity of da’if (weak) narrators in that time was the scarcity of da’if leaders, as most of those who were followed were trustworthy Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Other than the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, most of them, in fact, generally all of them were trustworthy, truthful, and aware of what they narrate. They were the senior Tabi’in. There were one or two among them who were controversial, such as al Harith al A’war, ‘Asim ibn Damrah, and their like.

Yes, among them are a number of the leaders of the innovators from the Khawarij, Shia, and Qadariyyah—we ask Allah for protection—such as ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Muljam, al Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubayd al Kadhdhab, and Ma’bad al Juhani.

Then at the beginning of the second century, there were a group of da’if narrators from among the medium class Tabi’in as well as their juniors who were criticised because of their memory or innovation in them, such as ‘Atiyyah al ‘Awfi, Farqad al Sabakhi, Jabir al Ju’fi, and Abu Harun al ‘Abdi.

At the end of the general Tabi’in’s era, around the year 150 AH, a group of experts began discussing tawthiq and tad’if. Thus, Abu Hanifah said, “I have not seen a greater liar than Jabir al Ju’fi.”

Al A’mash made tad’if of a group and tawthiq of others. Shu’bah and Malik criticised some men also.^[10]

 

In any case, I will suffice here on some of their statements in criticism and I will suffice on the criticism that has reached us from two important cities, wherein scholarly problems appeared, viz. Kufah and Basrah, as I did not see much criticism in Madinah. I will focus on two great scholars in them, namely Ibrahim al Nakha’i al Kufi and Muhammad ibn Sirin al Basri. Although there are many statements from others,^[11] they require an independent study for which there is no space here. I will briefly present some manifestations of their criticism here:

 

Manifestation 1: Investigating the Isnad (chain of transmission)

Muhammad Ibn Sirin was clearly distinguished in this. As mentioned previously, the investigation into isnad began at the beginning of the second half of the first century and that some Companions, such as Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, began examining narrators. However, it seems that Iraq was ahead of Hijaz in investigating isnad and verifying the narrators in it. Therefore, it has been narrated that Ibn Sirin was one of those who looked into Hadith and investigated isnad. We do not know of anyone who surpassed him in it,^[12] as stated by ‘Ali ibn al Madini. Perhaps he meant in Basrah.^[13]

From amongst the investigations of Ibn Sirin is what al ‘Uqayli narrated from Ibn ‘Awn – from Muhammad Ibn Sirin:

 

إن‏ هذا العلم دين فانظروا عمن تأخذونه

This knowledge is Din, so be careful from whom you take it.

 

He states:

 

وذكر عند محمد حديثا عن أبي قلابة فقال لا يتهم أبو قلابة ولكن عمن أخذه أبو قلابة

When a hadith was narrated to Muhammad from Abu Qilabah, he said, “Abu Qilabah is not accused, but from whom does Abu Qilabah narrate?”^[14]

 

Abu Qilabah is reliable, noble, and pious. He is one of Ibn Sirin’s contemporaries, but he did compliment him concerning investigating the chain of transmissions.

Likewise, when Ibn Sirin heard a man (whose name was Sulaiman) narrating a hadith from him, which he did not recognise, he said:

 

ما‏ هذا قل لسليمان اتق الله ولا تكذب علي فأتى سليمان فذكر ذلك له فقال سليمان يا هذا إنما حدثني مؤذننا أين هو فجاء المؤذن فقال سليمان أليس حدثتنا عن ابن سيرين بكذا وكذا فقال المؤذن إنما حدثنيه رجل عن ابن سيرين

“What is this? Tell Sulaiman to fear Allah and not to attribute falsehood to me.”

When Sulaiman came, this was mentioned to him. Sulaiman said, “Oh! Our Mu’adhin narrated it to me. Where is he?”

The Mu’adhin then came and Sulaiman said, “Did you not narrate such-and-such from Ibn Sirin?”

The Mu’adhin submitted, “A man narrated to me from Ibn Sirin.”^[15]

 

If Ibn Sirin had left that hadith, it would have spread.

In any case, the investigation of isnad began clearly in that era and it continued strongly in Basrah. In fact, it seems that criticism of narrators and narrations in Basrah spread from him. ‘Ali Ibn al Madini al Basri said:

 

كان ابن سيرين ممن ينظر في الحديث ويفتش عن الإسناد لا نعلم أحدا أول منه ثم كان أيوب وابن عون ثم كان شعبة ثم كان يحيى بن سعيد القطان وعبد الرحمن بن مهدي

Ibn Sirin was one of those who would examine Hadith and investigate the chain of transmission. We do not know of anyone who preceded him. Then there was Ayub and Ibn ‘Awn, then Shu’bah, then Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan and ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi.^[16]

 

Manifestation 2: Criticism of Narrators

Likewise, this was prevalent more in Basrah and Kufah than in Madinah. Muhammad ibn Sirin was among those who became widely known for this. Yaqub ibn Shaybah said:

 

قلت ليحيى بن معين تعرف أحدا من التابعين كان ينتقي الرجال كما كان ابن سيرين ينتقيهم فقال برأسه أي لا

I asked Yahya ibn Ma’in, “Do you know any of the Tabi’in who used to select narrators the way Ibn Sirin would select them?”

 

He shook his head to indicate that he did not.^[17]

In Kufah, its senior scholar and great critic, Ibrahim al Nakha’i, was distinguished in narrator criticism. Mughirah narrates:

 

قدم علينا شيخ بالكوفة يروي لابن عمر فاختلفت إليه أياما فلما خرج الشيخ أتيت إبراهيم فقال لي أين كنت قلت قدم علينا شيخ يروي لابن عمر فاختلفت إليه أياما فقال إبراهيم كانوا لا يكتبون الحديث إلا عمن يعرف بالطلب ومن لا يعرف بالزيادة والنقصان أو نحوا مما قال

A Sheikh came to us in Kufah who narrated from Ibn ‘Umar. I went to him for several days. When the Sheikh left, I came to Ibrahim who asked me, “Where have you been?”

I replied, “A Sheikh came to us who was narrating from Ibn ‘Umar, so I went to him for several days.”

Ibrahim said, “They would not write Hadith except from those who were known for pursuit and those who were not known for any additions and subtractions,” or he said something similar to that.^[18]

 

This means that investigating the condition of the Sheikh was the basis in that era.

Ibrahim al Nakha’i’s statement emphasises the necessity of distinguishing narrators. He states:

 

كنا إذا أردنا أن نأخذ عن شيخ سألناه عن مطعمه ومشربه ومدخله ومخرجه فإن كان على استواء أخذنا عنه وإلا لم نأته

When we wanted to learn from a Sheikh, we would ask him about his food, drink, and whereabouts. If all were in order, we would learn from him. Otherwise, we would not go to him.^[19]

 

He denounced some of his students for taking Hadith from everyone. He said to them:

 

لقد رأيتنا وما نأخذ الأحاديث إلا ممن يعرف وجوهها وإنا لنجد الشيخ يحدث بالحديث يحرف حلاله من حرامه

Our condition was such that we would only learn Hadith from those who knew all its aspects. We found such Sheikhs narrating Hadith, who would distort the permissible from the forbidden.^[20]

 

Ibrahim exposed two of the narrators of Kufah and falsified them. He said:

 

إياكم والمغيرة بن سعيد وأبا عبد الرحيم فإنهما كذابان

Beware of al Mughirah ibn Sa’id and Abu ‘Abdul Rahim, for they are liars.^[21]

 

Al Mughirah ibn Sa’id was a Shia liar. One of the eminent Tabi’in, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Baqir,^[22] also falsified him. Abu ‘Abdul Rahim is Shaqiq al Dabbi, as al Dulabi mentioned in al Kuna wa al Asma’.^[23] He was a Khariji from the Haruriyyah sect.^[24]

All of this confirms that consideration, scrutiny, and distinction began early, and it began at the hands of senior critic scholars.

 

Manifestation 3: Criticism of Hadith

Ibrahim al Nakha’i was one of the great Hadith critics of his time, due to the strength of his Hadith and the strength of his Fiqh. That is why his student al A’mash described him by saying:

 

كان إبراهيم صيرفيا في الحديث‎ فكنت إذا سمعت الحديث من بعض أصحابنا أتيته فعرضته عليه

Ibrahim was an expert of Hadith. Whenever I heard any hadith from some of our companions, I would come to him and present it to him.^[25]

 

Perhaps one of the most important reasons for the strength of Ibrahim al Nakha’i’s criticism and his being an expert was the strength of the scholarly reception he obtained from the students of Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu, especially what he learnt from them from the practices they inherited from the great Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Some of his statements dispute some of the ahadith that do not agree with this strong legacy. From amongst these is:

 

هبط الكوفة ثلاثمئة من أصحاب الشجرة وسبعون‎ من أهل بدر لا نعلم أحدا منهم قصر ولا صلى الركعتين اللتين قبل المغرب

Three hundred of the Companions that participated in the pledge of the Tree and seventy of the people who participated in the Battle of Badr descended in Kufah. We do not know of any of them who made Qasr or performed the two rak’at before Maghrib.^[26]

 

This means that he objected to the hadith of the two rak’at before Maghrib due to the inherited practice. Likewise, he objected to the hadith of Qunut in Fajr and Maghrib because the students of Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not practice it.^[27] This shows a high regard for the knowledge that he inherited. If there were any al khabar al wahid^[28] reports that contradicted it, he would stop, consider, ponder, and scrutinise.

Ibn Sirin’s condition is the same except that he would not criticise ahadith based on its contradiction with inherited practice, as there was no inherited practice in Basrah. This is the conclusion I reached in another study.^[29] However, one of his important positions in criticism is that if a man narrated a hadith to him and he disliked it, he would not accept it in that manner and would say to him:

 

إني لا أتهمك ولا أتهم ذاك ولكن لا أدري من بينكم

I do not accuse you, nor do I accuse that person, but I do not know who is between you.^[30]

 

Manifestation 4: Scrutinising and Testing

An example of this is that Ibrahim al Nakha’i would scrutinise the memory of some narrators in that early era. He is reported to have said:

 

إذا حدثتني فحدثني عن أبي زرعة فإنه حدثني بحديث ثم سألته بعد ذلك بسنة فما خرم منها حرفا

When you narrate to me, then narrate from Abu Zur’ah,^[31] for he narrated a hadith to me, then I asked him a year later and he did not decrease a single word from it.^[32]

 

This means that Ibrahim al Nakha’i would observe and investigate the narrations in order to ensure whether the Sheikh forgets or makes a mistake with the passing of time.

Similarly, Ibn Sirin would scrutinise some of his senior contemporaries. Among them were Ibrahim al Nakha’i himself, al Hassan al Basri, and ‘Amir al Sha’bi. Someone mentioned to Ibn Sirin that these three would narrate the Hadith sometimes like this and sometimes like that. So he said:

 

أما إنهم لو حدثوا به كما سمعوه كان خيرا لهم

Had they narrated it as they heard it, it would be better for them.^[33]

 

All of this shows careful scrutiny of the transmissions from early days of senior Tabi’in and scholars.

All the previous critical authority confirms that the narrations that have reached us from the era of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and the Tabi’in had endured long stages of filtration and purification, before the scholars in the generation of the Successors of the Tabi’in adopted them.

 

NEXT⇒ Chapter 3 – From the Tabi’in to the Atba’ al Tabi’in (Successors of the Tabi’in) – The paths of the narrations from the Tabi’in to the Atba’ al Tabi’in

---

^[1]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 5/301.

^[2]  Al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 1/646.

^[3]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 4/421 onwards.

^[4]  Ibn al Madini: Su’alat Ibn Abi Shaybah, pg. 82; al Khatib: Tarikh Baghdad, 3/286.

^[5]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 6/87. In fact, Ibrahim al Nakha’i preferred ‘Alqamah to al Aswad due to his participation in Siffin with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. (Ibn Sa’d, al Tabaqat, 6/91.)

^[6]  See his biography by al Mizzi in Tahdhib al Kamal, 17/39. He is one of those who narrated Hadith from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu as mentioned previously, even though he was fighting against him.

^[7]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 5/6.

^[8]  Bekir Kuzudişli: Hadis Tarihi (Tarikh al Hadith), pg. 115.

^[9]  I derived this idea from Professor Ahmet Yücel’s book, Hadis Tarihi (Tarikh al Hadith), pg. 40-41, published in Turkey.

^[10]  Al Dhahabi: Dhikr man Yu’tamad Qawluhu fi al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, pg. 172–175.

^[11]  Ibn Rajab quoted some of these statements in Sharh ‘Ilal al Tirmidhi, 1/351-353. It contains important texts related to the Tabi’in’s criticism of al Harith al A’war, Ma’bad al Juhani, and Talaq ibn Habib. Refer to it. Likewise, refer to Professor Halil Ibrahim Turhan’s research, in Turkish, regarding the emergence of criticism in ‘Ilm al Rijal (narrator criticism) and its development. He preferred that al Sha’bi was the first to begin criticising narrators. (Halil Ibrahim Turhan: Rical Tenkidinin Doğuşu ve Gelişimi, pg. 40.)

^[12]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh ‘Ilal al Tirmidhi, 1/355.

^[13]  Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan believed that al Sha’bi (d. after 103 AH) was the first to investigate isnad. Perhaps that was in Kufah specifically or in a special incident, as it appears from the context of the story. Refer to al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 208.

^[14]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/7.

^[15]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/7.

^[16]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh ‘Ilal al Tirmidhi, 1/355.

^[17]  Ibid.

^[18]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/359.

^[19]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/366.

^[20]  Ibn Abi Khaythamah: al Tarikh, 1/315.

^[21]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 4/178.

^[22]  Abu Jafar Muhammad al Baqir said:

برئ الله ورسوله من المغيرة بن سعيد وبيان فإنهما كذبا علينا

Allah and his Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are absolved of al Mughirah ibn Sa’id and Bayan, for they lied upon us. (Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 4/179)

Bayan is Ibn Sam’an.

^[23]  Al Dulabi: al Kuna wa al Asma’, 2/865.

^[24]  See the criticism of the distinguished Tabi’i, Abu ‘Abdur Rahman al Sulami, in al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 2/186. Ibn ‘Adi states in al Kamil:

و شقيق الضبي كوفي لا أعرفه إلا هكذا وكان من قصاص أهل الكوفة والغالب عليه القصص ولا أعرف له أحاديث مسندة كما لغيره وهو‎ ‏مذموم عند أهل بلده وهم أعرف‎ به

Shaqiq al Dabbi is a Kufi. I do not know him except in this way. He was a storyteller from the people Kufah, and he mostly told stories. I do not know of him narrating ahadith with chains of transmission like others. The people of his city despised him, and they knew him better.

^[25]  Al Khatib: al Jami’ li Akhlaq al Rawi, ‎2/214. Rather, his investigation in Hadith extended to the ahadith of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In another narration al A’mash states:

كان إيراهيم صيرفيا في الحديث أجيئه بالحديث قال فكتب مما أخذته عن أبي صالح عن أبي هريرة قال كانوا يتركون أشياء من أحاديث أبي هريرة

Ibrahim was an expert in Hadith. I would come to him with Hadith. He says, “He wrote from what I took to him from Abu Salih — from Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.”

He further states, “They would leave out some of the ahadith of Abu Hurairah.”

(Imam Ahmed: al ‘Ilal, 1/428 (946))

This means he prioritised practice over al khabar al wahid. Details will follow.

^[26]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 6/9.

^[27]  Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, 1/429 (952).

^[28]  Narrations narrated by only one narrator.

^[29]  Ahmed Snubar: Madinat Riwayah la Madinat Fiqh, Dirasah fi Athar Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu al Hadithi wa al Fiqhi fi al Basrah (A city of narration, not a city of Fiqh, a study of the Hadith and Fiqhi work of Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Basrah), printed in Tasawwur magazine, volume: 6, edition: 2.

^[30]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/12.

^[31]  He is Abu Zur’ah ibn ‘Amr ibn Jarir ibn ‘Abdullah al Bajali. See his biography by al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 33/323; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 5/8.

^[32]  Sunan al Darimi, chapter on the Hadith from reliable narrators, Hadith: 432.

^[33]  Sunan al Darimi, chapter on those who permit a hadith if the meaning is correct, Hadith: 328; Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, ‎2/391 (2746).