بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

23 Shawwal , 1444 AH  (Sunday, 14  May , 2023)

الذي يتصل إسناده بنقل العدل الضابط

the chain of which connects continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person

الذي يتصل إسناده

the chain of which connects continuously

We were discussing the second condition that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ placed in the definition of Ṣaḥīḥ – which is essentially the first condition (since we cancelled out: Musnad) – and that is: the condition that the chain should not have a missing link. It must be fully connected. This means that it must be proven that each narrator heard the narration from the person above him in any of legal and valid ways of obtaining a narration.

The reason why ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ added this clause is because if the narrator does not reveal or does not even take the name of the person who informed him of the narration, then how will we be able to ascertain the status of that informant/of the person who narrated to him? How will we know the status of that person’s memory and how honest that person was.

Likewise, even though the person might be quoting from someone who lived in the same era as him, if he does not take the name of the narrators above him, we will have no knowledge on whether there is one missing link or if there are multiple missing links. It happens often that one contemporary quotes from another, who in turn quotes from another.

On face value, this condition of Ittiṣāl as-Sanad seems to be a valid clause. No one will object; definitely, all the links should be quoted.

However, there is an exception. Before mentioning this exception, we will first present a definition of one terminology on a very basic level. This is: the meaning of the word Mursal. Shaykh Maḥmūd Ṭaḥḥān defines Mursal saying:

هو ما سقط من أخر إسناده مَن بعد التابعي (تيسير مصطلح الحديث – ص: 87)

When a Tābi’ī quotes directly from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), then this is Mursal (of course, there is much more to this, and that be discussed in detail under its relevant chapter, in shā Allāh).

Basically, it took time for the concept of Isnād to develop; where every person had to mention the name of the narrator in every link. In the initial stages, most of the Tābi’īn would just quote the narration that they heard from the Ṣaḥabah without taking and revealing the names of the Ṣaḥābah. The Tābi’īn would quote directly from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). This is something that is normal even until today. If your teacher quotes something from his teacher, you will not always clarify that your teacher told you that his teacher said. You will almost always just quote the statement directly from your teacher’s teacher, without taking your teacher’s name.

In the same manner, numerous Tābi’īn would simply quote directly from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Almost all scholars would accept this narration. But if a Tābi’ī, a person who did not meet the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is quoting directly from him, then what does it mean? It means that there is a missing link. Yet, most of the earlier scholars and the greatest Muḥaddithīn all accepted such a narration.

It was only when Imām Shāfi’ī came, he felt that additional conditions and extra clauses need to be fulfilled, then only can such a narration be accepted. But his time was very different from the time of the earlier scholars. He was only born in 150 AH, whereas Imām Abū Ḥanīfah already passed away by then. Many students already took the Muwaṭṭa from Imām Mālik by then.

If we consider and take note that most scholars accepted narrations with a missing link after the Tābi’īn, then, this clause of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is not entirely valid. The reason is that we will assume that Mursal narrations; narrations where a Tābi’ī quotes directly from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), are rejected.

This clause is only valid for Shāfi’īs. Therefore, as a follower of the Shāfi’ī Madhab, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ himself emphatically mentions that he does indeed intend that Mursal narration will be rejected. He writes after:

وفي هذه الأوصاف احتراز عن المرسل (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 12)

This is also the understanding that the readers and commentators got from this clause. The Shāfi’ī commentators were happy with this clause. For example, ‘Allāmah Zarkashī said:

احترز به عن الذي لا يتصل سنده: كالمنقطع والمرسل والمعضل ليس صحيحا (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 98)

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī explains how this condition is Mānī (blocks, prevents and excludes):

وبه خرج المنقطع والمرسل بقسميه. (فتح المغيث – 1 / 24)

However, we just mentioned that most scholars accepted a Mursal narration. If we accept these statements from these scholars, then what will happen? It will be that earlier scholars accepted Mursal narrations, but latter day scholar are rejecting Mursal narrations, because they do not fulfill the condition of Ittiṣāl as-Sanad. There is a missing link in Mursal narrations. But undoubtedly, earlier scholars consider Mursal narrations as Ṣaḥīḥ.

Objection

Therefore, it raises an objection: How can ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mention such a clause? ‘Allāmah Baqā‘ī wrote:

إن تعريفه ‌غير ‌جامع؛ لخروج المرسل، وابن الصلاح قد صرح بأن بعض أهل الحديث يصححه كمالك، وعبارة ابن الصلاح واضحة في قبولها. (النكت الوفية بما في شرح الألفية – 1 / 86)

Responses

After presenting this definition, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ acknowledged and admitted that there are differences of opinion on these conditions. He wrote:

وقد يختلفون في صحة بعض الأحاديث لاختلافهم في وجود هذه الأوصاف فيه، أو لاختلافهم في اشتراط بعض هذه الأوصاف، كما في المرسل. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 13)

‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī explained that this statement of ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ protects him from the objection.

على أن المصنف قد احترز عن خلافهم بعد أن فرغ من الحد وما يحترز به عنه (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 61)

In this case, a Ḥanafī, Mālikī and Ḥanbalī needs to know that there is this exclusion from the clause of Ittiṣāl as-Sanad.

The author is a Shāfi’ī, and he is writing according to the principles of his Madhab.

‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī attempted to give a response, but that is entirely from a Shāfi’ī perspective.

In at-Taqyīd wa ’l-Īḍāḥ, ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī wrote:

أن من ‌يصنف في علم الحديث إنما يذكر الحد عند أهله ، لا من عند غيرهم من أهل علم آخر. (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 60)

He then says:

وكون الفقهاء وإلاصوليين لا يشترطون في الصحيح هذين الشرطين لا يفسد الحد عند من يشترطهما. (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 61)

(Note, ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī wrote this sentence as an answer for an objection on the last two words of the definition of Ṣaḥīḥ, but the response applies to this too.)

This response of ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī is inaccurate and it is not precise. Most Muḥaddithūn accepted Mursal narrations.

Yes, because many scholars who wrote on Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth were Shāfi’īs, it seemed as if whatever the Shāfi’īs said, that is the view of the overwhelming majority of Muḥaddithīn.

Since ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ and the main commentators of his book were all Shāfi’īs, it is crucial to clarify this point right now, from the very onset, before delving further into his book.

The Science of Ḥadīth in the light of the Shāfi’ī viewpoint

As mentioned, most of the scholars who wrote independently on the topic of ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth were all Shāfi’ī scholars. There are only a few exceptions, such as Qāḍi ‘Iyāḍ and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, who were Mālikīs. However, besides this handful, almost all other authors were Shāfi’īs. The result of this was that the Shāfi’īs made the science of ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth correspond with the Shāfi’ī Madhhab, because all of the Shāfiʿī scholars presented the principles in a way that conforms to their Maḏhhab. Because they were all Shāfiʿī, it seems that the Muḥaddithīn followed the Shāfi’ī Madhab, and the principles of the Shāfi’ī Madhab.

Shaykh ‘Awwāmah mentions this important point in the introduction to Tadrīb ar-Rāwī. He says:

وإن أركان علم مصطلح الحديث رحمهم الله هم: الحاكم، والبيهقي، والخطيب، وابن الصلاح، والنووي، والعراقي، والزركشي، وابن حجر، والسخاوي، والسيوطي، ومؤلفاتهم المتداولة هي أركان هذا العلم، وأقوالهم هي السائدة المرجوع إليها. يضاف إليهم: ابن جماعة، والطيبي، والتبريزي، والعلائي، وابن كثير، والأبناسي، والبلقيني، وابن الملقن، ثم القسطلاني، ثم المناوي – كل هولاء – وغيرهم – هم من حيث المذهب الفقهي فقهاء شافعية ، ومعلوم اشتراك مباحث السنة من علم أصول الفقه مع علم أصول الحديث ، فمزج هولاء الأئمة كتبهم في علم أصول الحديث بأراء أئمتهم الشافعية الأصولية الفقهية لا سيما وأن الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله وسائر علماء المسلمين كتب أبحاثا كثيرة تدخل في العلمين، فصار علم أصول الحديث أو مصطلح الحديث مصطلحا شافعيا الخ (الدراسة على تدريب الراوي – 1 / 16)

“The pillars of this field of Ḥadīth nomenclature are: al-Ḥākim, al-Bayhaqī, al-Khatīb, Ibn as- Ṣalāḥ, an-Nawawī, al-‘Iraqī, az-Zarkashī, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, as-Sakhāwī, and as-Suyūtī. Their opinions are regarded as the most important, and they are referenced (often). The following scholars could be added to this list: Ibn Jamā’ah, at-Tībī, at-Tibrīzi, al-‘Alā’i, Ibn Kathīr, al-Abnāsī, al-Bulqīnī, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, then al-Qasṭalānī, then al-Munāwī: all of them –and so many others, followed the Shāfi’ī methodology from a Fiqhī perspective, and they were masters of it. It is known that there are chapters of ’Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth mixed with ’Uṣūl al-Fiqh. Since these scholars were Shafi’ī, they mixed many Shafi’ī principles in their books of ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth. Imām ash-Shafi’ī did this in Ar-Risālah, and many others wrote chapters which involved both sciences. So, the science of Ḥadīth now became according to the Shafi’ī Madhhab.” (Ad-Dirāsah ʿAlā Tadrīb ar-Rāwī, 1 / 16)

Therefore, we will very often differ with the principles mentioned here in Muqaddimah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, because we will be studying it from the Ḥanafī perspective. Ḥanafī scholars retained their principles and approach to Ḥadīth in the books of Uṣūl al-Fiqh, so we will quote these books (of Uṣūl al-Fiqh) often.

Reverting back to the topic, according to the other three Madhāhib, this clause of Ittiṣāl as-Sanad is not correct because it misses out the exception. It will only be correct according to Shāfi’īs and those who follow them. ‘Allāmah Zarkashī said:

وهذا صحيح على رأي من لا يقبل المرسل البتة وأما من يقبله بشرطه الآتي كالشافعي فلا. (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 98)

For now, please keep in mind that there is an exclusion on the first condition that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned.

According to Ḥanafīs, even if there is a Tābi’ī misses out links and quotes from a Ṣaḥabī, then such a narration too will be accepted, even if the Tābi’ī was known for his piety and knowledge. This will be discussed in detail under the relevant chapter, in shā Allāh.

To precisely commence the definition of Ṣaḥīḥ according to Ḥanafīs, we will add the words: ilā Tābi‘iyyin. Hence, the definition will be as follows:

الذي يتصل إسناده إلى تابعي…

Others would have to add just a few additional words:

الذي يتصل إسناده إلى تابعي إذا روى عن رسول الله

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentions the next words in his definition of Ṣaḥīḥ:

بنقل العدل الضابط

Through the transmission of one upright and accurate person

With these words, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is adding conditions that every narrator should fulfill.

He mentions two qualities of a narrator. He must be: 1) ‘Adl and 2) Ḍābiṭ.

It is important to define both terms and see exactly what ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ intends.

‘Adl

Literal Meaning

The literal meaning of ‘Adl is that the person is just and trustworthy. Abū Manṣūr Azharī related:

وكتب عبد الملك إلى سعيد بن جبير يسأله عن العدل، فأجابه: إن العدل على أربعة أنحاء: العدل في الحكم: قال الله تعالى: {وإذا حكمتم بين الناس أن تحكموا بالعدل} (النساء: 58) والعدل في القول؛ قال الله تعالى: {وإذا قلتم فاعدلوا} (الأنعام: 152) . والعدل: الفدية؛ قال الله: {ولا يقبل منها عدل} (البقرة: 123) . والعدل في الإشراك قال الله جل وعز: {ثم الذين كفروا بربهم يعدلون} (الأنعام: 1). (تهذيب اللغة – 2 / 124)

The first two meanings in the above quotation could apply here, whilst the latter two might not be applicable.

Before that, Abū Manṣūr Azharī quoted

وقال إبراهيم: العدل الذي لم تظهر منه ريبة. (تهذيب اللغة – 2 / 124)

‘Allāmah Sayf ad-Dīn Āmidī (551 AH – 631 AH) explained the various meanings of the word ‘Adl:

أما العدل في اللغة، فهو عبارة عن ‌المتوسط ‌في ‌الأمور ‌من ‌غير ‌إفراط في طرفي الزيادة والنقصان، ومنه قوله تعالى: {وكذلك جعلناكم أمة وسطا} أي عدلا. فالوسط والعدل بمعنى واحد.

وقد يطلق في اللغة والمراد به المصدر المقابل للجور، وهو اتصاف الغير بفعل ما يجب له، وترك ما لا يجب، والجور في مقابلته.

وقد يطلق: ويراد به ما كان من الأفعال الحسنة يتعدى الفاعل إلى غيره، ومنه يقال للملك المحسن إلى رعيته: عادل.

وأما في لسان المتشرعة، فقد يطلق ويراد به أهلية قبول الشهادة والرواية عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. (الإحكام في أصول الأحكام – 2 / 76)

Technical Meaning

As for the technical meaning, it seems that the first person to define it was Imām Ḥākim. He explained it saying:

وأصل عدالة المحدث أن يكون مسلما لا يدعو إلى بدعة ولا يعلم من أنواع المعاصي ما تسقط به عداله (معرفة علوم الحديث – ص: 99)

“The basis of the ʿAdālah of the Muḥaddith is that he is a Muslim, he does not invite towards innovation, nor any form of disobedience is known from him that will affect his ʿAdālah.” (Maʿrifah ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth, page: 99)

Thereafter, there were different explanations that are presented. Allāmah Ṭāhir al-Jazā’irī said:

من ‌أصعب ‌الأشياء ‌الوقوف ‌على ‌رسم ‌العدالة فضلا عن حدها وقد خاض العلماء في ذلك كثيرا فقال بعضهم العدالة هي ملكة تمنع عن اقتراف الكبائر والإصرار على الصغائر وقال بعضهم هي ملكة تمنع عن اقتراف الكبائر وعن فعل صغيرة تشعر بالخسة كسرقة باقة بقل وقال بعضهم من كان الأغلب من أمره الطاعة والمروءة قبلت شهادته وروايته ومن كان الأغلب من أمره المعصية وخلاف المروءة ردت شهادته وروايته. (توجيه النظر إلى أصول الأثر – 1 / 94)

From the fifth century, scholars used two terms when explaining ‘Adālah:

1. Taqwā – Piety
2. Muruah – Carrying oneself in a dignified manner

Imām Ghazālī (450 AH – 505 AH) defined uprightness (‘Adālah) as:

والعدالة عبارة عن استقامة السيرة والدين ويرجع حاصلها إلى هيئة راسخة في النفس تحمل على ملازمة التقوى والمروءة جميعا حتى تحصل ثقة النفوس (المستصفى – ص: 125)

“ʿAdālah is an expression of uprightness in life and religion. The summary refers to: that which is firmly embedded condition in the souls that causes a person to firmly hold on to both Taqwā and Murū’ah until he attains reliability and credibility..” (Al-Mustaṣfā, page: 125)

In the next century, ‘Allāmah Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī (544 AH – 604 AH) mentioned these two terms:

العدالة وهي هيئة راسخة في النفس تحمل على ملازمة التقوى والمروءة جميعا حتى تحصل ثقة النفس بصدقه ويعتبر فيها الاجتناب عن الكبائر وعن بعض الصغائر كالتطفيف في الحبة وسرقة باقة من البقل وعن المباحاث القادحة في المروءة كالأكل في الطريق والبول في الشارع وصحبة الأراذل والإفراط في المزاح والضابط فيه أن كل ما لا يؤمن معه جرأته على الكذب ترد به الرواية وما لا فلا ويتفرع على هذا نوعان من الكلام (المحصول للرازي – 4/ 571)

“ʿAdālah is that which is well established in the inner self which leads to adherence of Taqwā and Murūah until reliability is obtained with sincerity. It is considered to be abstaining from major sins and some minor sins such as a minor decrease in weight of grains, stealing a bunch from a grocer and from malignant discussions concerning Murūah, like eating in the pathways, urinating in the streets, accompanying the despicable, excessive joking. The ruling is that anything that he does not believe with him, courage to lie, his narration is rejected, if not then this is divided into two categories.” (Al-Maḥṣūl li’r-Rāzī, 4 / 571)

In the beginning of the next century, ‘Allāmah al-Āmidi made sure to mention both terms:

وحاصلها يرجع إلى هيئة راسخة في النفس تحمل على ملازمة التقوى والمروءة جميعا حتى تحصل ثقة النفوس بصدقه وذلك إنما يتحقق باجتناب الكبائر وبعض الصغائر وبعض المباحات (الإحكام للآمدي – 2/ 88)

“In brief, it goes back to the inbuilt nature of the person, that is firm in both Taqwā and Murūah, until the self becomes reliable with truthfulness, and this is attained by abstaining from major sins and some minor sins and permissible actions.” (Al-Iḥkām li’l-Āmidī, 2 / 88)

Then, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned these same two conditions and added other conditions as well. He mentions the term here without going into detail, but later in the book he elaborates on the conditions. On page 104 of this book, he writes:

وتفصيله أن يكون مسلما، بالغا، عاقلا، سالما من أسباب الفسق وخوارم المروءة، متيقظا غير مغفل. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 104)

These are six conditions that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned in this statement. For now, you can just understand the word ‘Adl in this context with:

• its literal meaning
• the two conditions mentioned before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh: the person should also be pious and dignified.

Thus we will translate it as:

‘A trustworthy and pious person who carried himself with dignity and integrity,’

In shā Allāh, when we reach the chapter where ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ discussed the term, we will then elaborate on the details and study his additional conditions.

Establishing ‘Adālah

Another point: there are differences on whether it must be proven that the narrator is ‘Ādil (pious and dignified), or whether the default and natural condition of every person is that he is ‘Ādil until he is proven that he is not trustworthy. Is a person innocent until proven guilty, or does a person have to prove his innocence?

Some scholars feel that every person is neutral: we cannot say that he is trustworthy, nor can we say that he is not trustworthy. Ultimately, neutral equals to not being trustworthy, because we cannot accept the narration until the person is proven to be ‘Ādil. If no proof is found a narrator ‘Ādil, then he cannot be assumed to be ‘Ādil, and thus his narration will not be graded as Ṣaḥīḥ.

Other scholars claim that every person naturally is trustworthy. He is innocent until proven guilty/ Pious until proven to be a sinner/Dignified until proven to have no integrity. Hence, an average Muslim may narrate unless it is proven that he is not trustworthy. ‘Allāmah Zarkashī explained:

احترز به عما اتصل سنده بغير ‌العدل وهو قسمان:

أحدهما: الحسن فإنه اتصل سنده لكن لا يخلو عن مستور لم تثبت عدالته

الثاني ما اتصل سنده بنقل غير ‌العدل فإنه ضعيف. (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 99)

Most Muḥaddithīn rule that the ‘Adālah must be established (so every person cannot just be assumed to be ‘Ādil). ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī mentioned in the commentary of his Alfiyyah, that the reason for the word ‘Adl is:

احتراز عما في سنده من لم تعرف عدالته، إما بأن يكون عرف بالضعف أو جهل عينا، أو حالا، كما سيأتي في بيان المجهول. (شرح التبصرة والتذكرة ألفية العراقي – 1 / 104)

That is why ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī phrased this saying:

‌فالصحيح عندهم ما اتصل سنده وعدلت نقلته. (معالم السنن – 1 / 6)

‘Allāmah al-Bazdawī (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) explained this stating:

فأما العدالة فإنما شرطت لان كلامنا في خبر مخبر غير معصوم عن الكذب فلا يثبت صدقه ضرورة بل الاستدلال والاحتمال وذلك بالعدالة وهو الانزجار عن محظورات دينه ليثبت به رجحان الصدق في خبره (أصول البزدوي – ص: 163)

“As for ʿAdālah, it was placed as a condition because our speech concerning the report of the informer being unprotected from lies, his truthfulness is not necessarily established, rather obtained through proofs and possibilities. That is ʿAdālah, to abstain from prohibitions of the Religion in order to prove the preference of truthfulness in his report.” (Uṣūl al-Bazdawī, page: 163)

In contrast to this, ‘Allāmah Baqā’ī quotes from Ibn Ḥibbān said:

‌العدل من لم يتقدمه الجرح إذ الجرح ضد التعديل، فمن لم يعرف بجرح فهو عدل حتى يتبين ضده. (النكت الوفية بما في شرح الألفية – 1 / 624)

Again, this is something that will be discussed later.

Summary

For now, Ṣāḥīḥ should be defined as: Narrated from a person whose ‘Adālah is established’, ‘a person who is proven to be trustworthy, pious and of good moral/dignified’, A Muslim whose truthfulness, piety, dignity and integrity and dignity are established.

Details, conditions and differences will all be explained later, in shā Allāh.

Ḍabiṭ

لضابط

‘Allāmah Farāhīdī explained the literal meaning of Ḍabṭ saying:

‌ضبط: الضبط: لزوم شيء [لا يفارقه] في كل شيء. ورجل ‌ضابط: شديد البطش والقوة والجسم. (العين – 7 / 23)

‘Allāmah Fārābī explained the meaning:

‌‌[‌ضبط] ‌ضبط الشئ: حفظه بالحزم. والرجل ‌ضابط، أي حازم. الصحاح تاج اللغة وصحاح العربية (3/ 1139)

In Liṣan al-‘Arab it is mentioned

وقال الليث الضبط لزوم شيء لا يفارقه في كل شيء وضبط الشيء حفظه بالحزم (لسان العرب – 7 / 340)

“Ḍabṭ is to find my hold on to something, never separating from it in anything. Ḍabṭ of something is to retain it firmly.” (Lisān al-ʿArab, 7 / 340)

Thereafter it is written:

والرجل ضابط أي حازم ورجل ضابط وضبطى قوي شديد (لسان العرب – 7 / 340)

“If a person is Ḍābiṭ, it means to be firm, and a strong person; absolute strength.” (Lisān al-ʿArab, 7 / 340)

From these three dictionaries, we learn that Ḍabt literally has two meanings:

• Something holds rigidly onto another, in such a way that it never separates.
• Strong and full of strength.

Once the literal meaning is understood, it becomes easy to understand the technical meaning. The narrator needs to preserve the narration with strength, until he conveys it. Thus, Ḍabṭ refers to retaining and preserving the narration. ‘Allāmah Ibn al-Athīr explained the intricacies of it:

وهو عبارة عن احتياط في باب العلم، له طرفان. طرف وقوع العلم عند السماع، وطرف الحفظ بعد العلم ‌عند ‌التكلم حتى إذا سمع ولم يعلم، لم يكن شيئا معتبرا، كما لو سمع صياحا لا معنى له، وإذا لم يفهم اللفظ بمعناه على الحقيقة، لم يكن ضبطا، وإذا شك في حفظه بعد العلم والسماع، لم يكن ضبطا. (جامع الأصول – 1 / 72)

‘Allāmah Zarkashī explained how this condition is Māni’. It excludes:

خرج عنه من ليس بضابط ، وهو من كثرت مخالفته لرواية الثقات المتقنين ، وخرج عنه أيضا من ليس بضابط ولكنه لم يبعد عن درجة الضابط فإنه إذا روى حديثا كان حسنا ولم يكن صحيحا، لأن من شرط الصحيح أن يكون راويه ضابطا (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 100)

May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all.

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك ، أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت ، أستغفرك وأتوب إليك