The same is true of al-Wāhidī, al-Thalabī’s student. Al-Baghawī based his abridged commentary on the commentaries of al-Thalabī and al-Wāhidī. However, the two of them were better informed (1) than he about the statements of the Quran commentators. Al-Wāhidī was more learned in Arabic than either of the other two, while al-Baghawī adhered more closely to the Sunnah than either of them.

Merely belonging to the majority who affirm the caliphate of the first three caliphs does not entail that everything a person relates is true, just as being among the Shia does not entail that everything he relates is false. Rather, all must be weighed on the scale of justice.

People have fabricated many hadiths and falsely attributed them to the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—concerning theology, legal rulings, asceticism, and merits. They also fabricated many reports concerning the merits of the four caliphs and the merits of Muāwiya.

Some people set out to transmit everything reported on a subject without distinguishing the authentic from the weak. Abū Nuaym did so in his work on the merits of the caliphs, as did others who wrote works on merits. The same applies to what Abū al-Fath ibn Abī al-Fawāris, Abū Alī al-Ahwāzī, and others compiled concerning the merits of Muāwiya; what al-Nasāī compiled concerning the merits of Alī; and what Abū al-Qāsim ibn Asākir compiled concerning the merits of Alī and others. These scholars and others like them intended to transmit what they had heard without distinguishing its authentic material from its weak material. Thus, by scholarly consensus, one may not categorically affirm that a report is true merely because any one of them relates it.

As for authors of works on theology, jurisprudence, asceticism, and heart-softening exhortations who cite hadiths without chains of transmission, they cite many authentic hadiths, while some of them cite