↑[1] . An example of this is what has been narrated: Zubair heard a man narrating from the Messenger of Allah . He listened until the man finished his narration, then said: “Did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah ?” The man said: “Yes.” Zubair then said: “This and similar cases are what prevent us from narrating from the Messenger of Allah . By my life, you did hear this from the Messenger of Allah , and I was present that day. However, the Messenger of Allah began this statement by telling us about a man from the People of the Book. You arrived that day after the beginning of the statement and the mention of the man from the People of the Book had already passed, so you assumed that it was part of the statement of the Messenger of Allah ” (Qabul al-Akhbar Wa Ma‘rifah al-Rijal by al-Ka‘bi, vol. 1, p. 45; al-Madkhal Ila Ilm al-Sunan by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 1, p. 330). Likewise, it has been reported that Aishah heard of a narration from Abu Hurairah in which the Messenger of Allah said: “Bad omens are in three things: in a woman, a horse, and a house.” She then became extremely angry and said: “By Allah, the Messenger of Allah did not say this. Rather, he said: ‘The people of the pre-Islamic era used to say: bad omens are in three things: in a woman, a horse, and a house’” (See Musnad of Ahmad, vol. 43, p. 197; Sharh Mushkil al-Athar by al-Ṭahawi, vol. 2, p. 251). Thus, it became clear that Abu Hurairah erred in the narration. It has also been reported that she heard of a narration from Umar and his son Abdullah, in which the Messenger of Allah said: “Indeed, the deceased is punished because of the weeping of his family.” She then rejected this and said: “You are narrating to me from people who are neither liars nor suspected of lying, but hearing can be mistaken” (Sahih of Muslim, vol. 3, p. 43), and in another narration, she said: “May Allah forgive Abu Abd al-Rahman—meaning ibn Umar. He did not lie, but he forgot or erred. Indeed, the Messenger of Allah once passed by a Jewish woman whose family was weeping over her, and he said: ‘You are weeping over her, while she is suffering in her grave’” (Muwatta’ Malik [narration of Yahya], vol. 1, p. 234). Examples in this regard are numerous, and al-Ka‘bi (d. 319 AH) has mentioned a number of them in Qabul al-Akhbar, in «باب ما رووه في فساد كثير من حديثهم وتعمّد جماعة منهم الكذب فيه» (vol. 1, p. 76)—which means, “the chapter on what they have narrated concerning the corruption of many of their reports and the deliberate fabrication of lies in them by a group among them”—and also in «باب ما رووه ممّا الغلط فيه ظاهر جدًّا لا يدفعونه ولا يشكّون فيه» (vol. 1, p. 133)—which means, “the chapter on what they have narrated in which the error is very evident, which they neither deny nor doubt.” You may refer to it.

↑[2] . Saba/ 52

↑[3] . As ibn al-Qassar (d. 397 AH) has said: “Malik held that the solitary report of a just individual requires action, but does not lead to certainty about the report itself. This is also the view held by all the jurists” (al-Muqaddimah Fi al-Usul by ibn al-Qassar, p. 26), and al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH) has said: “The jurists and the theologians have agreed to name every report that falls short of producing knowledge as a solitary report (khabar wahid), and such a report does not produce knowledge” (Tamhid al-Awa’il Wa Talkhis al-Dala’il by al-Baqillani, p. 441), and ibn Hazm (d. 456 AH) has said: “The Hanafis, the Shafi‘is, the majority of the Malikis, and all of the Mu‘tazilah and the Khawarij have said that a solitary report does not produce knowledge. What this means, in the view of all of them, is that the report may be false or may contain an error, and they are all in agreement on this” (al-Ihkam Fi Usul al-Ahkam by ibn Hazm, vol. 1, p. 119), and al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) has said: “The view held by the vast majority of Muslims—from the Sahabah and the Tabi‘un, and those who came after them among the hadith scholars, jurists, and scholars of Islamic legal theory —is that the solitary report of a trustworthy individual leads to conjecture and does not produce knowledge” (Sharh Sahih Muslim by al-Nawawi, vol. 1, p. 131).

↑[4] . This is because it is a perceptible matter that is independent of religions or schools of thought; as al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH) has said in response to those who deny this: “This is a disgrace, which is obvious to anyone of sound mind” (al-Burhan Fi Usul al-Fiqh by al-Juwayni, vol. 1, p. 231), and al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) has said: “A solitary report does not yield knowledge, and this is known by necessity, for we do not believe everything we hear. Even if we were to believe and assume a conflict between two reports, how could we then affirm two opposites?” (al-Mustasfa by al-Ghazali, p. 116), and ibn al-Arabi (d. 543 AH) has said: “We know by necessity that it is impossible for knowledge to result from a solitary report, and that it is possible for lies or oversights to creep into it” (al-Mahsul by ibn al-Arabi, p. 116), and al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) has said: “As for one who says that (a solitary report) provides knowledge, he obstinately resists what is perceptible” (Sharh Sahih Muslim by al-Nawawi, vol. 1, p. 132), and al-Taftazani (d. 793 AH) has said: “Reason testifies that the solitary report of a just individual does not produce certainty, and that the possibility of lies remains—even if it is unlikely. Otherwise, it would necessarily follow that one must be certain of two opposites when two just individuals report them” (Sharh al-Talwih Ala al-Tawdih by al-Taftazani, vol. 2, p. 7).

↑[5] . Yunus/ 36