, and Hishām ibn Khālid al-Azraq, Yaʿqūb ad-Dawraqī, ʿAbdah ibn ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm al-Marwazī, and a multitude besides them—the last of whom was Abū ʿUtbah Aḥmad ibn al-Faraj al-Ḥijāzī.
Rabāḥ ibn Zayd al-Kūfī narrated from Ibn al-Mubārak that he said:
“When Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh and Baqiyyah ibn al-Walīd are both present, Baqiyyah is the one I prefer.”
Sufyān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik also reported from Ibn al-Mubārak:
“Baqiyyah was truthful, but he would write from whoever came and went.”
Yaḥyā ibn al-Mughīrah ar-Rāzī transmitted from Ibn ʿUyaynah:
“Do not take from Baqiyyah what pertains to the sunnah; take from him what concerns reward and similar matters.”
I say: For this reason most of the leading scholars were strict regarding hadiths that establish legal rulings, granting only limited concession—certainly not unchecked lenience—in narrations about virtues and matters that soften the heart. In such topics they will accept reports with weak isnāds, but not those whose transmitters are charged with fabrication. As for forged traditions or narrations crippled by severe weakness, they pay them no attention whatsoever; rather, they cite them only to warn against them and to lay bare their condition. Whoever knowingly disguises such reports or conceals their true nature is assaulting the sunnah and betraying Allah and His Messenger. If he is genuinely unaware of this, he may be excused on account of his ignorance, yet still, “So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.” ⦗1⦘