Ibn al-Mulaqqin's al-Badr al-Munir, and the 'An'anah of Narrators Described With Tadlis كتاب البدر المنير لابن الملقن، وعنعنة الموصوف بالتدليس

Questioner: May Allah be good to you, O Shaykh: the book al-Badr al-Munir fi Takhrij al-Ahadith al-Waqi'ah fi al-Sharh al-Kabir by Ibn al-Mulaqqin — what is your view of it, O Shaykh?

[The same questioner also asked about paying the expiation for an oath in money; that answer is in Paying the Expiation for an Oath in Money.]

As for the book al-Badr al-Munir by Ibn al-Mulaqqin, it is a good book with benefit in it, and useful. He mentions the hadith and does its takhrij, but he builds his method of authenticating and weakening on the method of the later scholars, not the method of the early scholars. So one benefits from it in attributing hadiths to their sources and the like.

As for what he says is authentic or weak, this must be verified, because he builds on the method of the later scholars. The great differences between the method of the early scholars and the method of the later scholars have been explained previously.

When the later scholars see a hadith in whose chain is someone described with tadlis, they say: "He did not state explicitly that he heard it," and so they declare it defective. This is a sheer mistake; none of the early ones did this. I have told you more than once: it is not known from any of the Salaf or of the imams of hadith — such as Yahya ibn Sa'id al-Qattan, Ibn Mahdi, Waki', Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn al-Madini, Ibn Ma'in, Abu Hatim, Abu Zur'ah, al-Bukhari and Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, and al-Daraqutni —

it is not known from any of these that he declared a hadith defective because of someone described with tadlis merely on account of 'an'anah [narrating with the word "from"]. The early ones distinguished between tadlis and 'an'anah: they would say "he committed tadlis [here]," and would not declare it defective on the grounds that he did not state that he heard it. Not a single example of this is known from the Salaf.

And one described with tadlis has his hadith accepted with 'an'anah unless tadlis predominates in him, as Imam 'Ali ibn al-Madini (may Allah the Exalted have mercy on him) stated explicitly.

Declaring defective the hadiths of al-Hasan al-Basri, Abu al-Zubayr, Qatadah, Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i, al-A'mash, Ibn Jurayj, or al-Walid ibn Muslim on account of 'an'anah is questionable and a mistake.

This is one of the great differences. That is why they weaken the hadith of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir: "Do not slaughter except a musinnah [an animal of full age], unless it is difficult for you, then slaughter a jadha'ah [a younger animal]." They weaken it, saying Abu al-Zubayr did not hear it from Jabir — meaning he did not state that he heard it. So when they found 'an'anah they declared this report defective, and this has no basis.

Abu al-Zubayr is accepted, whether in the narration of al-Layth or outside the narration of al-Layth. He did hear from Jabir, so whether he states that he heard or does not, there is no difference, since he did hear from him in general.

And the fact that he may commit tadlis from Jabir does not mean that whatever he did not state he heard, he took by tadlis. Among these differences also are the issues of the addition of a reliable narrator (ziyadat al-thiqah), the anomalous narration (shadh), attention to hidden defects (ta'lil), and strengthening through supporting narrations (shawahid). These are great differences between the early ones and the later ones.

النص العربي الأصلي