The narration of the fraudulent (narrators who heard some Hadiths from their elder scholars and added some others on their own) if they do not mention hearing the narration themselves. They say: "So and so said" from the people who lived with whether they met or did not meet him, but they do not have a permission to deliver what they heard from them or a permission of narration or a way of transmission. So, they delude people by their saying: "So and so said" and the hearer thinks that they heard from so and so or so and so gave them permission of narration or something of the like. They were truthful when they said: "So and so said" because they truly heard it from one or more narrators on his authority, but this is called Tadlis (fraud) because of the confusion happened to the hearer.
Some scholars considered this type authentic and can be used as a proof such as: Abu Hanifah, Ibrahim An-Nakh’y, Hammad ibn Abu Sulayman, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn Al Hasan, and those who followed their view from the scholars of Kufa.
However, other scholars considered it unauthentic and can be used as a proof such as: Al Shafi’y, Ibn Al Musayyab, Az-Zuhry, Al Awza’y, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and those who followed their view from the people of Hijaz.
As for the scholars of Hadith, they did not consider it as authentic or used it as a proof.
It is divided into six categories:
1- A group of people attributed lies against trustworthy people who were in the same rank of trustworthiness or lower or higher but they did not go out the circle of trustworthy people whose narrations are accepted because their purpose was not fraud or cheating but their purpose was to exhort people to act righteously or invoke Allah (may He be Exalted) not with the purpose of narrating Hadith, and when they wanted to narrate Hadiths, they would mention their ways of transmission.
Of those people was Qatadah ibn Du’amah, the great scholar of Basra who used to say: "Anas said" or "Al Hasan said." He was famous for using Tadlish to them because he never used: "They told us" or "They informed us" or "I heard" when narrating from them.
2- A group of people who used Tadlis by saying: "So and so said." However, when someone asked them about the narration, they would mention the way of hearing the narration.
Of those people was Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, the great scholar of Makkah, who used to say: "Az-Zuhry said" or "‘Amr ibn Dinar said." Sufyan was famous for hearing from them both but he did not mention the way of narration of this Hadith. Moreover, he was famous for using Tadlis for things he did not hear as Ali ibn Khashram said: We were at Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah then he said: Az-Zuhry said: He was asked: Did Az-Zuhry tell you this Hadith? He kept silent then said: “Az-Zuhry said.” He was asked again: Did you hear it from Az-Zuhry? He said: No, I did not hear it from Az-Zuhry or even someone who heard it from Az-Zuhry. ‘Abdur-Razzaq told me from Ma’mar from Az-Zuhry [and mentioned the way of transmission]. Do not you see that first he used Tadlis but when he was asked about the way of narration, he mentioned the way of hearing?
Tadlis (fraud) is done when a narrator narrates from his peers but when he narrates from someone from the past, he shall not be a fraudulent but will go under the limit of Al Mursal which we mentioned.
3- A group of people who used Tadlis against ignorant people whom they did not know and did not know where they are, so they mentioned unknown names.
4- A group of people used Tadlis against criticized narrators by changing their names and gave them nicknames in order not to be known.
5- A group of people who used Tadlis against a group of people from whom they heard many narrations, and may be they missed something from them, so they used Tadlis without mentioning the way of their narration if they are asked.
6- A group of people who narrated from scholars whom they did not see or hear from, but they would say: "So and so said," so people understood that they heard from those scholars but they did not hear from them.
The eighth type which is the third type of controversial Hadiths:
A piece of news that is reported by a trustworthy narrator on the authority of a scholar then a group of trustworthy narrators report it as Mursal.
For example: The Hadith of Sa’id ibn Jubayr on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas from the Prophet (peace be upon him) who said: "Whoever hears the call and does not come, his Salah is not valid except for those who have an excuse." Thus ‘Ady ibn Thabit reported the Hadith from Sa’id ibn Jubayr who is trustworthy but the friends of Sa’id ibn Jubayr reported it from the way of Sa’id without mentioning Ibn ‘Abbas.
This type is very common and it is authentic according to the views of jurists who accepted the addition of a trustworthy narrator either in the chain of transmission or in the text of the narration. As for the scholars of Hadith, they adopted the view of the majority who said that the Hadith must be verified and considered as Mursal because of the omitted Companion.
The ninth type which is the fourth type of the controversial Hadiths:
The narrations of a narrator whose heard or written narrations are authentic, famous for narration, and trustworthy but he does not know the Hadith which he reports or even memorize it. Al Hakim said: The example of this type is the narrators of our time. However, such narrations are held as proofs according to most Hadith scholars and a group of jurists. As for Abu Hanifah and Malik (may Allah bestow mercy upon them), they do not use it as a proof.
I said: If Imam Al Hakim said that about the narrators of his time which was near to the time of the Prophet, what should we say about our time?! We ask Allah to protect us from error and grant us success and correction in words and actions.
The tenth type which is the fifth type of the controversial Hadiths:
Narrations of innovators and people of whims which are accepted according to the scholars of Hadith if they are truthful. Al Bukhari reported in his Sahih on the authority of ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub who said Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah used to say: The truthful in his narration but the accused in his religion, ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub. Al Bukhari also reported in his Sahih from Muhammad ibn Ziyad and Hariz ibn ‘Uthman who were famous for fraud. Imam Al Bukhari and Muslim reported in their Sahih from Abu Mu’awiyah Muhammad ibn Khazim and ‘Ubaydullah ibn Musa who were famous for exaggeration.
As for Malik ibn Anas, he used to say: Hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) cannot be taken from the people of whims who call people to their whims or from liars who attribute lies to people even if they are not accused of attributing lies against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
Al Hakim said: These are the types of the agreed upon and the controversial Hadiths which we mentioned so as people would not think that we only accept the Hadiths reported by Al Bukhari and Muslim. We found that Al Bukhari wrote a book in history in which he collected the names of narrators from which he took Hadiths from the time of the Companions to year 50 AH and their number reached 40.000 men and women but he only reported from a group of them in his Sahih and Imam Muslim reported from a group of them in his Sahih. Al Hakim said: I gathered their names and the names of the controversial narrators, but they did not reach two thousand men and women. He said: I verified the forty thousand who were severely criticized and found them 226 narrators.
Knowledge seekers should know that most news-narrators are trustworthy and that the highest degree is given to those who were found in Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and that most of the rest were trustworthy. However, their names were skipped from Sahih Al Bukhari and Muslim because of the reasons mentioned not because of criticism in their trustworthiness. Al Bukhari and Muslim did so for more caution and seeking the highest degrees of narrators, and the rest forsaken Hadiths were accepted by other Hadith scholars.
Do not you see that Abu ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhy (may Allah bestow mercy on his soul) who was famous for Hadith and Fiqh sciences said at the end of his book "Al Jami’": All Hadiths I have written in my book are accepted by some scholars except two Hadiths: The Hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet (peace be upon him) combined Zhuhr and ‘Asr in Medina, and combined Maghrib and ‘Isha' without the presence of the state of fear or travel.
The second is the Hadith of Mu’awiyah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If a person drinks wine for the first time, lash him, but if he commits it again in the fourth time, kill him."
Except for these two Hadiths, the rest of Hadiths were accepted by some scholars, whereas others did not act according to them.
So, if the book of At-Tirmidhy, despite its numerous Hadiths, nothing of which Hadiths was abandoned and people acted according to them except two Hadiths, so how can people think that there is no authentic Hadiths except those found in Sahih Al Bukhari and Muslim?!