in more than one hadith previously cited (256, 265, 302).

The point is that I have not found any of the early scholars accusing al-Mubārak of this type of concealment in transmission.

As for Imam Aḥmad’s statement concerning him:

“In more than one hadith, he says, reporting from al-Ḥasan: ‘ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn narrated to us.’”

Whereas al-Ḥasan’s students do not say this, as stated in al-Mīzān. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Tahdhīb: “That is, he explicitly states that al-Ḥasan heard from these men—that is, ʿImrān and others—whereas al-Ḥasan’s students mention it using the ambiguous ‘from’ formula.”

This is all that occurs in al-Mubārak’s biographical entry that could possibly have served as al-Ḥāfiẓ’s basis for accusing him of concealment by omitting an intermediary. Yet, as you can see, it has absolutely no connection with it; rather, it is its complete opposite. For al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī was known for concealment in transmission. Thus, when he relates from ʿImrān or someone else using an ambiguous “from” formula, it is possible that there was a narrator between them whom al-Ḥasan omitted. But when al-Mubārak explicitly states that al-Ḥasan narrated it, he has connected the chain. This is plainly and clearly the exact opposite of concealment by omitting an intermediary.

The utmost that can be inferred from Aḥmad’s statement is that al-Mubārak is being charged with error in explicitly stating transmission between al-Ḥasan and ʿImrān, thereby differing from the trustworthy narrators. There is no doubt that al-Mubārak’s retention was weak; consequently, his hadiths fell from the rank of authentic to that of good—provided, of course, that he explicitly states transmission. For this reason, al-Dhahabī said in Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ:

“His hadith did not attain the degree of authenticity.”

And he said in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (7/284):