[The Shaykh’s Denial of His Narration]
If a narrator relates from a shaykh (1) a ḥadīth (2) and the shaykh (3) then denies (4) having transmitted it, the ruling is as follows:
—Should the denial be categorical—such as his saying, “He has lied about me,” or, “I never narrated this,” and the like (5)—then once such a declaration is made, the report is rejected, because one of the two must be lying, though we cannot identify which one in particular. This, however, does not constitute a blemish against either of them, for their statements are in direct opposition to one another.
—If, on the other hand, the denial is merely tentative, as when he says, “I do not remember this,” or, “I do not recognize it” (6), the ḥadīth is accepted according to the sounder opinion, since the shaykh’s words are interpreted as an admission of forgetfulness. A second view (7) holds that it should not be accepted, because the farʿ (secondary transmitter) is dependent on the aṣl (primary transmitter) (8) for establishing the ḥadīth; thus, only when the aṣl confirms the report does (9) the narration of the farʿ stand. For that reason (10) the farʿ ought to remain subordinate to, and in accord with, the aṣl in matters of verification (11).
(1) H reads “shaykhihi” (his shaykh).
(2) The word “hadithan” (a hadith) is absent from D.
(3) H reads “jahada” (repudiated).
(4) In the margin of D—in the author’s own hand—appears: “thumma balagha kadhalik” (then it likewise reached).
(5) H, W, and Z read “aw nahw” (or something similar); J has “wanahwu” (and something similar) with the nominative ending; the text adopted follows A and D.
(6) T has “wala” (nor) instead of “aw: la” (or: no).
(7) This is the view transmitted from some companions of Abu Hanifa; see Ibn al-Salah, Muqaddima, p. 117; Ala al-Din al-Bukhari, Kashf al-Asrar, 3/60.
(8) A and B read “yattabiʿu al-asl” (follows the principal); J and Z read “tabaʿa al-asl” (he followed the principal).
(9) T has “thabata” (is established), whereas M reads “yathbut” (becomes established).
(10) A, B, and L have “fa-kadhalik” (likewise); J has “fa-lidhalik” (therefore); W, Z, and K read “wa-kadhalik” (and likewise).
(11) The phrase “fi al-tahqiq” (in verification) is missing from K; B, J, D, H, and M have “al-tahaqquq”; H also has “fi al-nafi wa-tahaqquq” (in negation and verification); L and a marginal copy on W read “fi al-nafi” (in negation). Al-Qari notes in his commentary on Sharh al-Nukhba, p. 653: “(wa-tabaʿan lahu fi al-nafi) appears in many copies as (fi al-tahqiq). The likely intent is ‘in verifying the negation,’ meaning that since his source denies it, his hadith is not accepted.”