Weak, Unknown, and Hostile — The Narrators Behind the Canonical Collections

Three hundred and fifty-five narrators spoken against — seventy-five suspended transmissions — one hundred and forty-eight unknowns: the numbers alone indict the claim of infallibility. The author closes his critique of the canonical collections with a statistical audit and a sweeping theological argument about who was elevated and who was suppressed, and why.

Hundreds spoken against — and al-Ḥākim’s count of those al-Bukhārī and Muslim each rejected

The Imam (peace be upon him) then mentioned what we have already cited: that those spoken against among the narrators relied upon by al-Bukhārī number three hundred and fifty-five; those for whom he made suspended transmissions number seventy-five; and the unknown narrators number one hundred and forty-eight. And that al-Nawawī said in his commentary on Muslim:¹ Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Ḥākim said: the number of those transmitted by al-Bukhārī but not Muslim — meaning that Muslim regarded them as weak — is four hundred and thirty-four; and the number of those whose narrations Muslim relied upon as proofs but al-Bukhārī did not — meaning that he regarded them as weak — is six hundred and twenty-five.

He said:² And what al-Ḥākim mentioned in this regard, Ibn Ḥajar mentioned likewise in the introduction to Fatḥ al-Bārī.³

And he mentioned the people of tadlīs — that this is an established matter in their books — to the point that he related that Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al-Dhuhli forbade them from taking from al-Bukhārī.⁴

Up to his words: And it is established that al-Bukhārī accused this al-Dhuhli of lying, then relied upon him in his Ṣaḥīḥ and concealed his name.⁵ He proceeded to set out how they dealt with matters according to nothing but their own whims.

---

His own father called him a liar — and al-Dhahabī exonerated him

He said: And they say: so-and-so is deviant, so-and-so they abandoned — with no argument except mere assertion. And they validate whoever has been impeached by a specified cause of impeachment, as they transmitted from ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Dāwūd that he lies, and that he accused Anas ibn Mālik, the servant of the Messenger of God ﷺ, and his wives, of falsehood and fabrication in the Ḥadīth of the Bird, and said: if the Ḥadīth of the Bird is sound, then his ﷺ prophethood is void.⁶

And this is disbelief.

I say: This wretched one is Abū Bakr ibn Abī Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, the author of the Sunan.⁷

And in al-Mīzān of al-Dhahabī,⁸ with a chain to his father, that he said: My son ʿAbdullāh is a liar. Ibn Ṣāʿid said: What his father said about him is sufficient for us.

And in it: Ibn ʿAdī said — tracing the chain to Ibrāhīm al-Aṣfahānī — Abū Bakr ibn Abī Dāwūd: a liar.

Then al-Dhahabī bore witness to his memorisation and his leading scholarly rank. He said: I mentioned him only to exonerate him.⁹

Imam al-Qāsim (peace be upon him) said: And yet they validated him.

And al-Dhahabī said in al-Nubalāʾ, after mentioning this about him:¹⁰ He is a liar only in his manner of speech, not in ḥadīth — as though he were in his view one of the pillars of the ḥadīth scholars, on account of his deviation from the Commander of the Faithful. He then mentioned some of those whose discussion has already passed, up to his words: And their ilk from among the Nāṣibīs who bear hatred toward the household of Muḥammad — and yet they are, in their eyes, upright and beyond reproach; and if they are charged with any cause of impeachment, they overlook it.

End of the words of the Imam (peace be upon him), and what has already been presented is sufficient.

---

They chose to void prophethood rather than surrender what they had built upon their own whims

And I say — God is the Granter of success: You have heard what they boldly dare against God Almighty and His Messenger ﷺ — choosing to void prophethood and deny the prophetic mission rather than invalidate what they have established from themselves and by their own whims: the elevation of those whom God has lowered and the lowering of those whom God has elevated, without knowledge, without guidance, and without an illuminating scripture.

It is of no benefit, against such a rebellious denier, to counter and give the lie to a single report — for there are in its meaning texts beyond counting, in the Quran and the Sunnah. It is known from the Clear Book, and from the unanimously established Sunnah of the Trustworthy Messenger, that precedence and distinction belong to the Master of the Trustees, the brother of the Master of the Prophets — nay, the very soul of the Imam of the Messengers — and to the rest of his purified progeny (may God’s blessings and peace be upon them all) — to the chagrin of the deniers.

---

Whoever cited the proof was branded an innovator and a Rāfiḍī

It is known from the condition of the adversaries — may God requite them — that they pursue every method in invalidating the proofs of God Almighty that have come on the tongue of His Messenger concerning his Trustee and the rest of the household of His Prophet (may God’s blessings and peace be upon them): at times through weakening and falsification; at other times through substitution and distortion; sometimes through counter-argument and contradiction; and at other times through outright denial and repudiation. And when the verses and the massively transmitted reports dazzled them, and the well-known and overpowering proofs subdued them — and they found no stratagem in rejecting them, even through sheer brazenness; nor in opposing them, even with false narrations; nor in reinterpreting them, even with corrupt distortions; nor did they find any way out — they then turned away from their meanings, prevented any engagement with them, cut off all discussion of them, and shut all doors against them. It was as though there were deafness in their ears from hearing them, and a veil between themselves and them. They urged one another to abandon them and erase all mention of them — except what forced itself upon them as they recited the verses or dictated the narrations, without pausing at it or reflecting on it. And whoever cited one of these proofs, or explored it, or examined its meaning, they branded an innovator, reviled him as a Rāfiḍī, accused him of opposing the Sunnah and the community, attributed to him every enormity, and showed toward him neither loyalty nor any bond of honour —¹¹