Hadith Chapter Part A

This statement, may Allah have mercy on you, of accusation regarding the [Mu’an’an] chains is an invented one, produced without precedent, and there is no one who supports him from Ahl ul-Ilm in that. The widespread opinion, which is agreed upon between Ahl ul-Ilm, with reports and transmissions early and recent, is that each trustworthy narrator who transmits a Ḥadīth from his equal, with the feasible probability for [the transmitter] to meet [who he transmits from] and hear from him due to their being together in the same era, even if there never came a report that they met or spoke face to face, then the transmission is affirmed, and [using it as a] proof is appropriate, unless there is clear evidence that this transmitter did not meet who he transmits from or that he did not hear anything from him. Then as for when the matter is ambiguous regarding the possibility which we explained previously, then the transmission is always [accepted ]as coming by way of ‘hearing’ until there is evidence [otherwise] which we pointed out. Thus it is said to the inventor of this opinion whose speaker is as we have described, or to his defender- you have provided in the sum total of your statement that the report of the single trustworthy narrator on authority of the single trustworthy narrator is a proof which is required to act upon, then you introduced into it the condition afterwards, and you said ‘until we know that [the transmitter] had met once or more and heard something from [the one he transmits from]’. So have you found this condition which you stipulated from anyone [of Ahl ul-Ilm] who also required it? And if not then bring me evidence of what you allege. Thus if he claims there is a statement from one of the scholars of the Salaf for what he alleged in introducing the condition in affirming reports, [then] confirm it; [however] neither he, nor others, will ever find a way to produce it, even though he claims about what he alleges there is evidence to rely on. It is said ‘What is that evidence?’ Thus if he said: ‘I said it since I found transmitters of reports, early and recent, transmitting Ḥadīth from each other, and [the transmitter] did not ever see or hear anything from [from the one he transmits from]. Thus when I saw them permitting the transmission of Ḥadīth between them like this, Irsāl, without hearing [between transmitters], while the Mursal from the transmissions, in the foundation of our view and that of Ahl ul-Ilm in reports, is that it is not a proof; on account of what I described from the weakness, I rely on researching the hearing of the transmitter in each report on authority of [who he transmits from]. Thus when I unexpectedly come upon his hearing from [the one he transmits from] due to the low amount of a thing [i.e. transmissions on his authority], all of what he transmits on his authority becomes fixed to me thereafter. And if knowledge of [his actually hearing from whom he transmits from] is too distant from me, I withhold from the report and according to me it does not have a position of proof due to the possibility of Irsāl in it.’