—or from someone in whom such a possibility is admitted, such as al-Zuhri, ʿAmr b. Dīnār, Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib, Mālik, Ḥammād b. Zayd, Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah and the like; for people have only tolerated the solitary reports of authorities of this calibre—reports for which they find no corroboration—because of the rank to which God, Exalted be He, has raised them in leadership, mastery and exactness.

But when the likes of Sufyān b. Ḥusayn, Saʿīd b. Bashīr, Jaʿfar b. Burqān, Ṣāliḥ b. Abī al-Akhdar and their peers stand alone with a report that no one else transmits, the hadith experts do not give it the slightest consideration.

And if one of them narrates something that (1) contradicts what the reliable transmitters relate, that only adds weakness upon weakness.

So how could the report of such narrators ever be given precedence over the report of Mālik, al-Layth, Yūnus, ʿUqayl, Shuʿayb, Maʿmar, al-Awzāʿī, Sufyān, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī and their counterparts?!

Anyone who possesses even a modest acquaintance with hadith and its hidden defects will have no doubt about the invalidity of doing so. And with God, the Most High, lies success. (2)

Section

They said: As for your statement, “The utmost that can be cited as a defect in this hadith is that it stops with Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib, and this does not preclude its soundness, for the hadith may be with—"