THE NARRATION OF A NARRATOR WHO IS QALEEL UT-TADLEES - ISMAIL IBN ABI KHALID

TABLE OF CONTENTS


A) What is Tadlees [very brief definition]

B) Topic : Whoever is accused of, or committs tadlees even once (or a few times) , are all his mua'nan narrations rejected? 

1) THE TADLEES OF ISMAIL IBN ABI KHALID 

2) The Tadlees of Ismail ibn abi Khalid (  إسماعيل بن أبي خالد ) from `Amir ibn sharaheel ash-Sha`bi ( عامر بن شراحيل الشعبى)

3) Some of the Muhadditheen who have authenticated the muanan of Isma`eel ibn abi khalid 

C) CONCLUSION OF THIS SHORT ARTICLE 

The following article is compiled from the benefit shared by a group of scholars including but not limited to Shaykh ibn Bashir al-Hussainwi, Shaykh rafeeq tahir, Shaykh Anwar shah, Shaykh Khubaib, Shaykh Mubasshir Ahmad and more , whom i inquired with and requested their permission to allow me to add their fatawa/view points  in my compilation and upload it for the benefit of the english speaking brothers . Also please note that the English translation from arabic regarding such technical topics is very difficult thus i will try my best to translate it in a way that explains the meaning as well instead of only the principle or the very short summarized brief replies of the aimmah. Apart from this if you do not know the mustalah of jarh wa ta`deel then perhaps you may not understand much of what is to follow : 

A) What is Tadlees [very brief definition]




A Mudallis is the one who commits Tadlees which is when a narrator narrates from someone he does not directly hear from and omits the person he really hears from

[Ref: For details al-Fiyyah (1/180) of Haafidh al-A’raaqee, see also Nazhatun-Nazhar (p.82), an-Nukt (2/614) of Ibn Hajr and Tayseer Mastalah al-Hadeeth (p.78) of Dr. Mahmood at-Tahhaan.]


e.g Ahmad from (arabic  : `an or عن)  Omar from (`an)  Khalid from (`an) Abu Huraira from (`an) the prophet... 

Here ahmad did not hear from Omar directly but rather someone else who happened to be a weak narrator . And this weak narrator told Ahmad that omar narrated from khalid from abu huraira so what ahmad does is skips that someone in between who told him and directly says " From Omar"  This is one type of tadlees commonly known as Tadlees taswiyyah. there are few more types as well.  

Such type of reports of Ahmad are generally called as Muanan reports Ahmad. 


The GENERAL Ruling Concerning a PROVEN Mudallis Narrator by scholars is that his narrations wherein he uses the terms of narrating ahadeeth such as for example " `an Ahmad  " will not be taken to be as a connected chain unless his hearing from Ahmad is actually confirmed. 


Imaam Ibn as-Salaah (d.643H) said, 

“The ruling is that the only narration of a Mudallis that will be accepted is the one in which he clarifies who he heard it from, and this is upon every that individual who commits Tadlees once.” 

[Ref: Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah (p.60) another ed. (pg.99). ]


Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een (d.233H) said, 

“The Mudallis is not a proof in is Tadlees.” 

[Ref: al-Kifaayah (p.362) and Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/353) and (1/357-358)]


Imaam Nawawee said, 

“If a Mudallis narrates with Ann then that narration with agreement will not be proof.” 

[Ref: al-Majmoo Sharh al-Muhazzab (6/212), Nasb ur-Raayah (2/34).]

Imaam Ibn Katheer has mentioned the same that a narration in which a mudallis clarifies he heard the narration, will be accepted, and thereafter brings the statement of Imaam Ibn as-Salaah. 

[Ref: Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.46-48), al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.62-63).]

However the above is a general rule. What follows is a specific circumstance 




B) Topic : Whoever is accused of, or committs tadlees even once (or a few times) , are all his mua'nan narrations rejected? 


This Topic is a point of difference between some scholars from the salaf and khalaf , especially among the Ahl al-hadeeth. 

Some people say 

Whoever is accused of, or committs tadlees even once (or a few times) , are all his mua'nan narrations rejected? 

based on what Imam shaf`ee and some others said :

Imam Shafiee said 

ومن عرفناه دلس مرة فقد أبان لنا عورته فى روايته

If We know some one has done tadlees for once, He has shown us his faults

Then he said

لا نقبل من مدلس حديثا حتى يقول فيه حدثني أو سمعت


We do not take hadeeth from a mudallis unless he say Haddathanee (Hadeeth narrated to me) or Samiatu (I heard him)

[Ref: ar-Risalah:1035, Sakhawi had same opinion see Fath ul Mughees bi Sharh al-Faqeehul hadeeth Vol 1 page 193]

This is not a strong view in accordance to the vast majority of the earlier scholars and even today. From Bukhari, to `Ali ibn al-Madeeni , to today's Shaykh Hatim al-`Awni, Shaykh rafeeq tahir, Shaykh Muhibullah shah rashidi (rahimahullah) , shaykh Ibn Bashir al-Hussainwi, Shaykh Khubaib, Shaykh Irshad ul-Haq, Shaykh Mubasshir and many many more . 

If we were to adopt this rule then a lot of narrations that were considered authentic earlier would have to be deemed weak. Many years ago the scholar of his era and time , Shaykh Muhibullah shah rashidi as-sindhi (rahimahullah) said : 

(لیکن اگر اس موقف کو سامنے رکھ کر ہم دواوین حدیث کو تلاش کرنا شروع کردیں تو بہت سی روایات جن کو سلف سے لے کر خلف تک صحیح ومتصل قرار دیتے آئے ہیں ان میں سے اچھی خاصی تعداد ضعیفہ بن جائے گی)(مقالات راشدیہ ١/٣٢٨)۔

"... But if we w are to apply this perspective and research in the works of ahadeeth, many of which were deemed authentic and connected by the salaf and much of the khalaf would have to be declared weak " 

[Ref: Maqalat Rashidiyyah, 1/328] 

This perspective of itlaqan rejecting a qaleelul khata or qaleel ut-tadlees would be very troubling because it would then fall directly upon some major pinnacles of islamic tradition carriers such as Zuhri, Sufyan ath-thawri, `Amash and others after them 


قال علي بن المديني نظرت فإذا علم الأسانيد يدور على ستة نفر .

1 - فبالمدينة محمد بن مسلم بن عبيد الله بن شهاب الزهري ويكنى أبا بكر توفي سنة أربع وعشرين ومائة رحمة الله عليه وهو بالمدينة 
2 - ولأهل مكة عمرو بن دينار مولى بني جمح ويكنى أبا محمد توفي سنة ست وعشرين ومائة .
3 - ويحيى بن أبي كثير مولى طى ويكنى أبا نصر توفي سنة تسع وعشرين ومائة .
4 - ولأهل البصرة قتادة بن دعامة السدوسي ويكنى أبا الخطاب توفي سنة ست وعشرين ومائة .
5 - ولأهل الكوفة أبو إسحاق عمرو بن عبد الله السبيعي توفي سنة سبع وعشرين ومائة .

6 - وسليمان بن مهران الأعمش مولى بني كاهل من بني أسد يكنى أبا محمد توفي سنة ثمان وأربعين ومائة رحمة الله عليهم اجميعين 

Imam Ali ibn al-Madeeni the teacher of Bukhari about whom Bukhari said he never felt less/inferior in status in front of anyone of his shuyukh except `Ali ibn Madeeni. Imam Ali  listed out the 6 names around whom the daar o madaar of hadeeth traditions revolve around 

1. From Madinah shihab ud-deen az-zuhri 

2. From the people of Makkah `Amr ibn deenar

3. From Makkah Yahya ibn Abi Katheer

4. From Basra Qatada ibn Da`amah as-sadoosi 

5. From Kufa Abu Ishaaq `Amr ibn `Abdullah as-sab`iy

5. Imam sulayman ibn mahran al-`Amash [ Ref: see this article for a good summary on his tadlees http://majles.alukah.net/t322/#ixzz2z2VbQfOT] 

Now if we were to consider al-`Amash from above or  sufyan at-thawri's all muanan reports to be weak due to his tadlees then this wrong principle would make a huge number of narrations deemed weak. 

This is why Imam Ibn Hajar rahimahullah seems to be accepting sufyan at-thawri’s tadlees and his statement can be seen here : 

http://www.kulalsalafiyeen.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11276

 He stated that not all of the narrations of Imam Sufyan can be rejected, he also said that Imam Sufyan is amongst those mudalliseen whose mu'an'an narrations are mentioned in the Saheeh without any tasreeh bi samaa to be found. This is what shaykh Mubasshir ahmad also confirmed to me that in the saheehayn their muanan reports are not based on tashreeh bis-sama` and are accepted as such but outside saheehayn they need to be checked. 

This would again stir the debate of bukhari's usool because accepting their munanan in bukhari is one thing due to whatsoever reasons including ijmaa but then this still doesn't relieve us from the fact that Bukhari had a specific usool he used in his saheeh which would then stir the debate regarding how Bukhari did not consider their tadlees or munanan reports to be weak enough to not include in his saheeh. 

1) THE TADLEES OF ISMAIL IBN ABI KHALID 

It is said in a narration to weaken it that this is among

''اسماعیل بن ابی خالد عنعن وھو مدلس (الفتح المبین فی تحقیق طبقات المدلسین :٣٦/٢ وھو من الثالثۃ)

Isma`eel ibn abi khalid is reporting from `an and he is a muddalis (Fath ul-Mubeen fi tahkeeq tabaqat al-Muddaliseen and he is from the third (level))

Shaykh al-Muhaddith Zubair `Ali zaee (rahimahullah) whose contributions in the field of serving the academia is well known but he is also known be very strict on some issues. In his anwar us-saheefa he weakened a narration due to the tadlees of Isma`eel ibn abi khalid (rahimahullah). 

[Ref: Anwar us-saheefa Page 106 H : 2930 and elsewhere] 

Imam Ali ibn Madeeni rahimahullah was asked about the narration of one committing tadlees , so he rahimahullah said :

" If his tadlees is dominant (الغالب) then his narration is accepted only along with the affirmation of his hearing " 

[Ref: al-Kifayat of Baghdadi 2/387; Sanad Hasan] 

This shows that the one who doesn't commits tadlees often (qaleelan) or usually then his narration with `an are accepted except in a condition when it is proven that he has actually committed tadlees. Then that narration will be excluded from this principle of accepting the muannan of qaleelul tadlees

Imam Muslim in his Muqaddamah said : 

وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ تَفَقُّدُ مَنْ تَفَقَّدَ مِنْهُمْ سَمَاعَ رُوَاةِ الْحَدِيثِ مِمَّنْ رَوَى عَنْهُمْ إِذَا كَانَ الرَّاوِي مِمَّنْ عُرِفَ بِالتَّدْلِيسِ فِي الْحَدِيثِ وَشُهِرَ بِهِ فَحِينَئِذٍ يَبْحَثُونَ عَنْ سَمَاعِهِ فِي رِوَايَتِهِ وَيَتَفَقَّدُونَ ذَلِكَ مِنْهُ كَيْ تَنْزَاحَ عَنْهُمْ عِلَّةُ التَّدْلِيسِ. 

Those who investigated from them [i.e the scholars of Ḥadeeth] would only verify the ‘hearing’ of the narrators of Ḥadeeth (whom) they transmitted from. If the narrator was among those who were known for Tadlees in Ḥadeeth and persisted/known for (committing) it (شُهِرَ بِهِ) . Thus when they investigated [a transmitter’s manner of] ‘hearing’ in his transmissions and they would research that about him in order to distance themselves from the defect of Tadlees.

[Ref: Muqaddamah Sahih Muslim, Translated by Abu Najm rodrigues  ] 

Another point to be noted here is what Hafidh ibn Rajab al-Hanbali rahimahullah said which roughly means: 

''ذکر من عرف بالتدلیس وکان لہ شیوخ لا یدلس عنھم؛ فحدیثہ عنھم متصل.'' (شرح علل الترمذي: ٢/ ٨٥٧)

One who commits tadlees with regards to his (specific or well known) shaykh then (despite this) his narrations from others will be taken in a connected form (without the accusation or doubt of tadlees) 

[Ref: Sharh `Ilal at-tirmidhi (2/857)]

Shaykh Muhammad Tal`at said : 

"The tadlees of Ismail ibn abi khalid is specific to narrating from Sha`bi (الشعبي) only thus his muanan from other shuyukh (of his) will not be considered suspended 

[Ref: Mu`jam al-Muddalliseen page 75. See his books here: http://www.arabicbookshop.net/main/CatalogueFilter.asp?auth=Ibn%20Talat,%20Muhammad&sort=6&type=AUTHOR] 

Thus the muanan narration of Isma`eel ibn abi Khalid from his other shuyukh will be considered to be based on his sama` (hearing)

Another point is that whoever is one of (renowned) specific students of a particular teacher then for such a student his muanan from this teacher of his will also be considered upon sama` . This is understood from the example of Imam `Ijli rahimahullah who considered Isma`eel to be among the specific and renowned students of Qays from whom he is reported to have narrated 500 narrations and thus the muanan reports of Isma`eel from Qays will also be taken to mean it is upon his hearing. 

Now Ibn Juraij rahimahullah  is among the specific and well known students of `Ata rahimahullah and he has narrated from him quite a lot. But Ibn Juraij is considered to be a bigger mudallis than Isma`eel ibn abi khalid rahimahullah. 

Yet we see that Imam Humaidi rahimahullah (whose biography if you read you'll feel he is way superior to Ahmad ibn Hanbal) considered the mu`anan reports of Ibn Juraij from `Ata to be connected and not broken that required the verification of his sam`a (hearing from ata to be proven first)

[Ref: al-Kifayah of Khateeb al-Baghdadi 2/409 No. 1190 with an authentic chain] 

2) The Tadlees of Ismail ibn abi Khalid (  إسماعيل بن أبي خالد ) from `Amir ibn sharaheel ash-Sha`bi ( عامر بن شراحيل الشعبى)

Before i proceed, i will quote the opinions of some scholars who have explained how Isma`eel is the best to take from when it comes to narrations from sha`bi . Meaning they have agreed upon him being one of the best sources to narrate from sha`bi. 


Imam Abu Hatim ar-razi said he doesn't prefer anyone over isma`el from the companions of sha`bi and he is trustworthy... 


لا أقدم عليه أحدا من أصحاب الشعبي، وهو ثقة، أروي من بيان وفراس، وأحفظ من مجالد، لا بأس به

Imam Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri said about him : 

ثقة وكان رجلا صالحا، ومرة: كان ثبتا في الحديث وربما أرسل الشيء عن الشعبي وإذا وقف أخبر وكان صاحب سنة، وكان لا يروي إلا عن ثقة

Those interested , the best way to read a summary about this junior taba`ee Isma`eel ibn abi khalid is to open Siyar `alam vol. 6 page 177 from Maktabah shamela . That will give a good brief summary . Now moving on 

Scholars have opined that Isma`eel ibn Abi Khalid's tadlees is only from  Sha`bi as it has come from Imam ahmad, Yahya ibn ma`een , Yahya ibn sa`eed al-Qattan regarding the narration << دية الخطأ أخماس ما دون النفس >> they said " Isma`eel did not hear this from  Sha`bi" 

[Ref: Al-`Ilal wal-Ma`rifat ar-rijaal of Imam Ahmad (2/266 , Number 2205) Masail Imam ahmad wa Ibn rahawy (2/214 mas'ala no. 2351) riwayah of الکوسج] 

Likewise in another narration such as << ''لما جاء نعی جعفر  >>  they say the same that ibn abi khalid did not hear from  Sha`bi

[Ref: Al-`Ilal wa ma`rifat...3/216 Number 4933 - Maktabah shamela] 

 قَالَ أبي كنت أسأَل يحيى بن سعيد عَن أَحَادِيث إِسْمَاعِيل بن أبي خَالِد عَن عَامر عَن شُرَيْح وَغَيره فَكَانَ فِي كتابي

the son of Imam Ahmad, Imam abdullah ibn Ahmad reported that my father (the great Ahmad ibn Hanbal) once inquired with Imam yahya ibn sa`eed al-Qattan (rahimahullah) regarding the narrations that had the chain Isma`eel ibn Abi Khalid from (`an) `Aamir (sha`bi) from Shurayh

''إسماعیل بن أبي خالد عن عامر عن شریح

So among the narrations he inquired, he had in his book the narration with the chain 

حَدثنَا عَامر عَن شُرَيْح حَدثنَا عَامر عَن شُرَيْح

"Isma`eel said : Narrated to us by `Amir (sha`bi) from shurayh ..."

 فَجعل يحيى يَقُول إِسْمَاعِيل عَن عَامر

So Imam Yahya ibn sa`eed al-Qattan (rahimahullah) asked " (Is it) Isma`eel `an Amir (or something else?) 

 فَقلت إِن فِي كتابي حَدثنَا عَامر حَدثنَا عَامر

Imam Ahmad replied : " (No rather) in my book it is Isma`eel haddathana (narrated to us) from `Amir ..." 

فَقَالَ لي يحيى هِيَ صِحَاح إِذا كَانَ يَعْنِي مِمَّا لم يسمعهُ إِسْمَاعِيل من عَامر أخْبرته

Then Yahya said : "(Okay if this is the case then) this report is saheeh , if Isma`eel hadn't heard those from sha`bi then i would have informed you "

[Ref: al-`Ilal from the route of imam ahmad's son 1/519 Number : 1218; Shamela] 

Let us see another example. 

4320 - حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي قَالَ سَأَلْتُ يحيى بن سعيد قلت هَذِه الْأَحَادِيث كلهَا صِحَاح يَعْنِي أَحَادِيث بن أبي خَالِد عَن عَامر مَا لم يقل فِيهَا حَدثنَا عَامر فَكَأَنَّهُ قَالَ نعم وَقَالَ يحيى إِذا كَانَ يُرِيد أَنه لم يسمع أَخْبَرتك

My father (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) narrated to me that i had asked (sa-altu is the fi`li al-maadi -  past form for mufrad f`ail when the addressee is the mutakkalim) Yahya ibn sa`eed and said : These are the narrations, are all of them saheeh? meaning narrations of Ibn Abi Khalid `an sha`bi and in neither of the reports ibn abi khalid has said "haddathana" `amir (sha`bi) . So yahya said yes (these are saheeh) and he said if he (ibn abi khalid) were to not have heard ( these from sha`bi) i would have informed you 

[Ref: Ibid no : 4320] 

حدثنا عبد الرحمن نا صالح بن أحمد بن علي - يعني ابن المديني - قال قلت ليحيى بن سعيد: ما حملت عن إسماعيل عن عامر صحاح؟ قال نعم.

Imam `Ali ibn Madeeni asked Yahya ibn sa`eed : " Do you consider (the mode of transmission) Isma`eel `an `Aamir to be upon correctness? Yahya replied : yes 

[Ref: Jarh wa ta`deel li-Ibn abi hatim 2/175 Shamela] 

The above quotes show that when Isma`eel ibn abi khalid reports from sha`bi in muanan form then he doesn't always commits tadlees. In some cases as two examples of ahadeeth were given above, so in some cases he does tadlees but not in most of them. So as per Yahya ibn sa`eed al-qattan his munan from sha`bi is accepted unless proven he actually committed tadlees in them 

Another point of dispute between the scholars is if isma`eel committed tadlees from his other asatidha or not. Some say he didn't and they are accepted until proven wrong whereas some say he did and they aren't accepted until the tasreeh of sam`a is found. 

I will quote the stance of the former opinion below 

3) Some of the Muhadditheen who have authenticated the muanan of Isma`eel ibn abi khalid 

See maktabah shamela for tracing most the mentioned references if needed. For the rest their pdf's shall suffice biidhnillah. 

3.1) Imam Abu `Esa from termez (d. 279 A.H) has authenticated the muanan narrations of Isma`eel ibn abi khalid in the following references from his Sunan 

Ahadeeth  numbers : 

 2551; 3057; 3821 and he said hassan saheeh 

3711 and he said hassan saheeh ghareeb

3.2) Imam ibn Khuzayma (D. 311 A.H) rahimahullah has authenticated the following in his saheeh 4/13 H : 2259 

3.3) Imam abu `awanah (D. 316 A.H) in Musnad abi `awanah; al-Mustakhraj `ala saheeh Muslim has authenticted in 

1/37, 58, 59, 96 , 376 

2/86 - twice page 366

3.4) Imam abu nu`aym (D. 430 A.H) in Musnad al-Mustakhraj `ala saheeh Muslim 

- 1/137, 138 H : 187 

- 2/409, 410, 411, 494 H: 1843, 1844, 1847, 1848, 2046 respectively 

- 3/ 109 H: 3324, 

- 4/66 H: 3245 

3.5) Imam ibn jarood (D. 307 A.H) in narration no. 334 said 

" This narration's authenticity does not fall below Hasan" 

[Ref: Siyar `alam 14/ 239] 

3.6) Imam Ibn Hibban (D. 354 A.H) in his Saheeh ibn Hibban 

- 1/152; 261; 262 - twice H : 90; 304; 305; 

- 3/ 288 H: 2134 

- 4/ 285 H : 2988 

- 5/99 H : 3232 

- 6/175 , 267 H : 4129, 4315

- 7/ 53, 589 H : 4564 , 5953

- 8/11, 121, 162, 237 H : 6126, 6416; 6494, 6639...

3.7) Imam Abu `Abdullah al-Hakim an-Naysapuri (D. 405 A.H) in his Mustadrak `ala saheehayn : 

- 1/ 322, 323 

- 2/466, 477, 157 : saheeh upon the doncitions of shaykhan. 

- 3/84, 330, , 99, 499 - saheeh in chain 

- 4/6, 546, 588 saying this is saheeh upon the conditions of shaykhayn but they did not record it. 

3.8) Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-`Ateeqi (died وقال الخطيب مات في صفر سنة إحدى وأربعين وأربعمائة .  441 A.H) . 

Thiqah Muhaddith Imam (see : http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?ID=4228&bk_no=60&flag=1)

Based on the principles of al-Hafidh Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ghaalib al-Barqani khawarmi 's : 

 التخريج لصحيح الحديث عن الشيوخ الثقات على شرط كتابي البخاري ومسلم

[See juzz al-awwal : http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=4138] 

- Page 39, H: 13, under narrating that hadeeth he says authenticating both Ibn abi khalid and the narration

هَكَذَا فِي أَصْلِ سَمَاعِي مِنَ ابْنِ مَرْوَانَ، وَالْمَحْفُوظُ فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ: «أَصْبَحَتْ بَنُو سَعْدٍ تُعَزِّرُنِي» .

وَهُوَ حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ، أَخْرَجَهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ وَمُسْلِمٌ مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ، كُلِّهِمْ عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ أَبِي خَالِدٍ، كَمَا رَوَاهُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُسْهِرٍ.

Page 52-53 H : 29, 30

3.9 ) Qadhi abu Ya`la (D. 458 A.H) in  ستة مجالس من أمالي [http://waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=7235 ] 

- Page 50 H : 2 authenticated a hadeeth containing muanan of isma`eel ibn abi khalid 

4.0) Shaykh Albani in his silsilah ahadeeth saheeha authenticated likewise in many instances, a simple search would help with more references than 475, 764, etc Also in his dhilal and sunan abi dawood (2380) and etc

C) CONCLUSION OF THIS SHORT ARTICLE 

The aim was only to show that the earlier scholars took the muanan reports of Isma`eel ibn abi khalif al-Kufi rahimahullah and abstained only when the tadlees was proven and not otherwise in general . I haven't even resorted to replying to those who argue otherwise because it would lengthen the article a lot. 

Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hadi al-Yemeni rahimahullah said :

''و نحن ما نظن ان المتاخرین یعثرون علی ما لم یعثر علیہ المتقدمون اللھم الا فی النادر ۔''

And we do not think that those who came later are more acquainted (in `Ilm, know-how) than what the earlier scholars were acquainted with (in regards to the deeni masail)  except very rarely. 

[Ref: أسئلة وأجوبة في مصطلح الحديث للشيخ العلامة مقبل بن هادي الوادعي رحمه الله  His audio - https://archive.org/details/Wadii-AsiilaHadith_MoroccoIslamic ] 

Ibn Taymiyyah said : 

‘Every saying that the latter [scholars] hold that was not held by the earlier [scholars] is an error

[Ref: Majmoo` al-Fatawa 21/291]

More so, on this issue there are many more books that can be read and studied. I will end the compilation here for now. For more you can refer to the works such as 

Shaykh Hatim al-`Awni's  المرسل الخفي وعلاقته بالتدليس - دراسة نظرية وتطبيقية على مرويات الحسن البصري

Page 505-507 , or see page 484 onwards 

See shaykh Muhibullah shah's work on this in his Maqalat rashidiyah page 306 : 

http://ia902601.us.archive.org/26/items/Maqalat-e-Rashidiya-1/Maqalat-e-Rashidiya-1.pdf

See Shaykh Khubaibs مقالات اثرية  | تاليف راقم الحروف

And many more.