从对圣训评论家客观性的探讨转向同样重要的另一个问题：圣训评论家的诚实与真诚。圣训评论家对圣训学是否真诚？他们是否维护了圣训学科的诚信？他们在为这门学科做贡献时是否诚实？还是说，他们个人的学术履历与名望比圣训学科本身更为重要？在本章中，我们将考察两种体现他们对圣训学科真诚与诚实的做法。第一种做法将表明，评论家在可以借此增加个人圣训履历、宣称拥有比实际更多老师的情况下，选择了诚实。第二种做法将表明，当遇到自己不知道答案的问题时，他们会如实告知提问者，而不是编造信息。

Moving on from the objectivity of Hadith Critics, we will take a look at something of equal importance: the sincerity and honesty of Hadith Critics. Were the hadith Critics sincere to the field of hadith? Did they uphold the integrity of the hadith field? Were they honest in contributing to the field? Or was their personal resume and fame as Critics more important than the field of hadith? In this chapter, we will observe two practices which are indicative of their sincerity and honesty to the field of hadith. The first practice will show the Critics opting for honesty in a scenario where they could have increased their personal hadith resume and claimed more teachers than they really had. The second practice will show that when faced with a question they didn’t know the answer to, they would let the questioner know, as opposed to making up information.

在阅读伊本·哈哲尔的《泰हditto》时，我开始注意到几位圣训批评家身上反复出现的一个主题。① Let me correct: the title is Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib, which in Chinese is 《泰赫迪布·泰赫迪布》? No—it is a book title and should be kept as written in the original. 在阅读伊本·哈哲尔的《Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib》时，我开始注意到几位圣训批评家身上反复出现的一个主题。一位批评家会提到某位圣训传述者——或是应人提问，或是出于自己的主动——在肯定该传述者可靠的同时，也承认他要么从未与另一位传述者相遇，要么即便相遇，也从未直接从对方那里获得过圣训。批评家如此行事（即否认从一位以可靠著称、因而被人寻访的传述者那里学习），唯一可以成立的解释就是诚实。这些批评家不愿为了抬高自己的师承、为自己的圣训履历增色而牺牲诚实，也不愿牺牲这门学科的正直。让我们来看几个例子。

While reading through Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar, I began to notice a recurring theme among several hadith critics. Essentially, a critic would mention a hadith transmitter - either as an answer to a question or by their own accord - and while affirming the transmitter’s reliability, they would also admit that either he never met the other transmitter, or if he did, that he never acquired hadith from him directly. The only viable explanation for a critic doing this (i.e deny learning from a transmitter who is otherwise sought out due to their reliability) is honesty. These critics were not willing to sacrifice their honesty, not the integrity of their field to increase their teachers and bolster their hadith resumes. Let’s consider a few examples.

1. 阿布·阿兹哈尔谈及自己时说：“我见过苏富延·本·欧雅奈，但他没有向我传述圣训。”43 苏富延·本·欧雅奈是一位著名的权威学者，若能与他有所联系，对于像阿布·阿兹哈尔这样的圣训传述者而言，将是一种荣耀与光彩。然而，阿布·阿兹哈尔承认，尽管他见过苏富延·本·欧雅奈，却从未实际从他那里获得过任何圣训。

1. Abul-Azhar said about himself, “I saw Sufyan b. „Uyaynah but he didn’t transmit to me.43” Sufyan b. „Uyaynah is a famous authority, whom a connection with would be a source of pride and honor for a hadith transmitter like himself. Yet, Abul-Azhar admits that, even though he met Sufyan b. „Uyaynah, he never actually acquired any hadith from him.

2. 艾布·祖尔阿·拉齐论及艾哈迈德·本·伊什卡ب（Ahmed b. Ishkab）时说："他是一位圣训学者（Sahib Hadith），我曾有机会与他相遇（adraktuh），但我没有从他那里记录过圣训。"44 艾哈迈德·本·伊什卡ب的可靠性得到一致认可，他的同伴和合伙人艾布·哈提姆·拉齐，以及布哈里等人，都被列为从他那里获得圣训的学生。在此情况下，艾布·祖尔阿不仅承认自己没有从一位传述者那里采集圣训，尽管本可以从他那里采集；而且这位传述者，正是他的其他同时代人所熟识并从其采集圣训的人。

2. Abu Zur’ah Al-Razi said about Ahmed b. Ishkab, “A person of hadith (Sahib Hadith), I had the chance to meet him (adraktuh), but I didn’t write from him.44” Ahmed b. Ishkab’s reliability is unanimously endorsed and his own colleague and partner Abu Hatim Al-Razi, as well as Al-Bukhari and others are counted amongst his students who acquired hadith from him. In this case, not only is Abu Zur’ah admitting not have taken from a transmitter though it would have been possible to take from him, it is a transmitter that his other contemporaries are acquainted with and have taken from.

3. 伊本·阿比·哈提姆论艾哈迈德·本·哈尔卜·穆swayyli(Al-Mawsili)说:“我有机会见过他(adraktuh),但我没有从他那里书写圣训;他是诚实的。”在这一表述中,伊本·阿比·哈提姆认可了这位传述者的诚实,而此人是素富扬·本·欧拜奈(Sufyan b. 'Uyaynah)与艾布·穆阿维叶(Abu Mu'awiyyah)的弟子之一。他很可能可以从这两人那里传述,却没有这样做。如前所述,素富扬是权威的学者,而艾布·穆阿维叶则是从艾尔·A'mash传述的最重要的传述者之一。

关于圣训传述人的书籍中一个显著的主题是：圣训学者毫不讳言对某段圣训或某位圣训传述人表示不确定或不了解。若要举例，那就是失职，因为这样的例子有数百个。只需说明，正因为他们坦诚地承认自己不了解传述人的身份，后来的圣训学者便专门发展出一个术语来指称这一做法。不为人所知的传述人，后来的圣训学者和作者称之为“Majhul”（不明者）。

A noticeable theme throughout the books on transmitters of hadith is that the hadith critics are not shy to express uncertainty about or ignorance of a hadith or a particular transmitter of hadith. To quote examples of this would be a disservice, as there are hundreds of examples. Suffice it to say that because of their honesty in expressing their ignorance on who transmitters may be, a special term was even developed to accommodate this practice. Transmitters that are unknown are termed as Majhul by later hadith critics and writers.

然而,如果批评者不诚实、判断随意,那为什么不干脆捏造关于传述者的信息呢?事实上,这正是展示自己胜过另一位圣训批评家的绝佳途径。一个人可以声称掌握某位传述者的独家信息,排除其他批评家,从而进一步提升自己在圣训领域的可信度。但如前所述,这种情况并未发生,圣训批评家们把圣训学这一领域的诚信置于任何个人利益之上,不会为了获取好处而假装知识渊博,或虚增自己的老师人数。

Yet, if the critics were dishonest and their rulings arbitrary, why not simply fabricate information about the transmitter? In fact, this would be a perfect way to show superiority over another hadith critic. One could claim exclusive information on a transmitter, to the exclusion of the other critics, further boosting his hadith credibility. But, as noted, this does not happen and the hadith critics preferred the integrity of the field of hadith to any personal gains to be gotten by feigning knowledge or falsely increasing the number of their teachers.