Thus, cases like this one—and others of the same kind—lay bare the weakness of Sufyān ibn Ḥusayn’s transmission from al-Zuhrī. Even were someone else to corroborate him, the foremost authorities and champions of this discipline would still deem the report deficient; how much more so when he alone relates something from trustworthy narrators and, in doing so, contradicts the firmly established imams?!

Mastery of this science and of its hidden defects is a matter of intuitive taste and a light that Allah casts into the heart. Whoever has tasted it judges with certainty and entertains no doubt, whereas one who lacks that taste senses nothing of it. It resembles the testing of coins by those versed in the craft: a discernment and expertise not granted even to many senior scholars. (1)

Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Numayr said that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī (2) declared, “Recognizing ḥadith is a form of inspiration.” Ibn Numayr added, “He spoke the truth. Were you to ask him, ‘On what basis did you say that?’ (3) he would have no answer.”

Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (4) likewise reported ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī as saying, “When we reject a ḥadith in the presence of the uninformed, it appears to them as though we are practicing divination.”