nor would they narrate a hadith they knew came from a liar. Thus, they would not narrate the hadiths of liars known to lie deliberately. Nevertheless, among the reports they narrate, there may be one in which its transmitter erred.

Imam Ahmad, Ishāq, and others might narrate hadiths they considered weak because their transmitters were suspected of poor memory or similar flaws, so that those reports could be weighed alongside others and cited as corroborating evidence. A given hadith may have evidence attesting that it was accurately preserved, or evidence showing that it was an error. The person from whom it originated may even have secretly falsified it (1), though he is not known for lying; rather, he narrates much that is true, and so his hadith is narrated.

Not everything narrated by an evildoer is necessarily false. Rather, his report must be verified (2), as Allah Most High says:

“O you who believe, if an evildoer brings you any news, verify it.”

[Surat al-Hujurāt: 6]

His report is therefore narrated so that the other corroborating evidence may be examined to determine whether it indicates truth or falsehood.

Many compilers find it extremely difficult to distinguish such matters properly; indeed, they may be unable to do so. A compiler therefore narrates what he heard just as he heard it, and the responsibility rests with someone else, not with him. Scholars then examine the report, its transmitters, and its chain of transmission.

Second:

This hadith is a fabricated lie by consensus of those well versed in fabricated reports. This is known to the scholars (3) of hadith, and they are the authorities to whom this matter must be referred. That is why (4) this report is not found in any of the hadith works upon which hadith scholars rely.