我们最后要探讨的角度，是圣训学者如何在其偏见的支持下对待圣训传述。以下四个例子都与神学偏见有关。杜里（Al-Duri）转述，叶哈雅·本·曼因（Yahya b. Ma'in）提到某位特定的传述人，并对他说：
The last angle through which we will consider this issue is how hadith critics treated hadith reports in support of their biases. The following four examples all relate to theological biases. Al-Duri relates that Yahya b. Ma’in mentioned a specific transmitter and said about him:
他转述了一段有问题的（munkar）圣训，其传述链为：Ali b. Thabit 从 Isra'il，从 Ibn Abi Layla，从 Nafi'，从 Ibn 'Umar，后者说：先知 ﷺ 说："有两个群体与伊斯兰无关：穆尔吉厄派和盖达利叶派。"在我们的第一个例子中，Yahya b. Ma'in 否定这段严厉批评并斥责其神学对手——穆尔吉厄派和盖达利叶派——的圣训。Yahya 反对盖达利叶派的立场已在 B 节中提及。至于穆尔吉厄派，Yahya 与之对立，他明确表示与之相反的观点："信仰是言语和行为；它会增加，也会减少。"此外，他似乎对穆尔吉厄派颇有不满，因为他引用 Shareek 关于穆尔吉厄派的话说："穆尔吉厄派是真主的敌人。"Yahya 对 Shareek 的这一说法没有作任何评论。在其关于有缺陷圣训的汇编中，Ibn Abi Hatim 就以下问题询问了他的父亲 Abu Hatim Al-Razi：
He transmitted an objectionable (munkar) hadith from „Ali b. Thabit from Isra’il from Ibn Abi Layla from Nafi’ from Ibn „Umar who said: The Prophet said, “Two groups who have no claim to Islam: The Murji’ah and the Qadariyyah.36” In our first example, Yahya b. Ma’in rejects this hadith that strongly criticizes and rebukes his theological opponents: the murji’ah and qadariyyah. Yahya’s opposition to the Qadariyyah has preceded in Section B. With regards to the Murji’ah, Yahya is opposed to them as he explicitly states, in opposition to them, “Belief is speech and actions; it increases and decreases.37” Furthermore, he seems to have a quite unfavorable view of them, as he quotes Shareek saying about the Murji’ah, “The Murji’ah are the enemies of Allah.38” Yahya doesn’t comment on Shareek’s statement. In his compilation on defective hadith, Ibn Abi Hatim posed the following question to his father Abu Hatim Al-Razi:
我问过我父亲一段圣训,它由Baqiyyah转述,来自Habib b. 'Umar,再来自他的父亲,来自Ibn 'Umar,来自'Umar,来自安拉的使者ﷺ,他说:"在复活日,将有一位宣告者宣布:'让安拉的敌人站出来。'他们就是盖德里叶派。"他回答说:"这段圣训是munkar(不可接受的);Habib b. 'Umar在圣训学上是弱者;不为人知;除了Baqiyyah之外没有其他人转述。"如果我们看Abu Hatim被问及的那段圣训,我们看到的只是一段讨论末日诸事的圣训,这是圣训中广为人知的一类,原则上Abu Hatim并不对其真实性有所顾虑。此外,这段圣训实质上是在强烈斥责盖德里叶派,而Abu Hatim反对这一群体,并视其为异端。事实上,Abu Hatim和Abu Zur'ah都向Ibn Abi Hatim口授了后来被称为《Aqidah Al-Raziyyayn》的文本,其中写道:"异端的盖德里叶派是迷途者。"然而,他坚持自己的圣训原则,因为Habib b. „Umar而拒绝了这段圣训,并没有让这一类型的可接受性,或这段内容对其反盖德里叶派偏见的支持,影响他的判断。
I asked my father about a hadith transmitted by Baqiyyah from Habib b. 'Umar from his father from Ibn 'Umar from 'Umar from the Messenger of Allah that he said, "An announcer will announce on the Day of Resurrection, 'Let the opponents of Allah stand' and they are the Qadariyyah?" He replied, "This hadith is objectionable (munkar); Habib b. 'Umar is weak in hadith; unknown; none except Baqiyyah transmit from.39” If we look at the hadith Abu Hatim is questioned about all we see is a hadith discussing the happenings of the day of judgment, a well-known genre in hadith that in principle Abu Hatim has no qualms of authenticating. Furthermore, the hadith is in essence strongly rebuking the qadariyyah, a group Abu Hatim was in opposition to and considered heretical. Indeed, Abu Hatim and Abu Zur’ah both dictated to Ibn Abi Hatim in their text that became known as “Aqidah Al-Raziyyayn,” “And the heretical Qadariyyah are misguiders.40” Yet, in sticking to his hadith principles, he rejected the hadith due to Habib b. „Umar, and didn’t let the acceptability of the genre to himself or the contents in support of his biases against the qadariyyah affect his decision.
阿布·哈提姆还被问及另一段圣训，其内容是：“每个民族都有其拜火教徒，而我的民族的拜火教徒就是盖达利耶派。如果他们生病，不要去探望他们；如果他们死了，不要为他们举行殡礼。”他回答说：“这段圣训是假的。”41 在阿布·哈提姆被问及的这第二段圣训中，需要注意的是，这段圣训迎合了他对盖达利耶派的偏见。此外，这段圣训属于“先知学证据”（Dala’il Al-Nubuwwah）这一类别，因为它预言了一个名为“盖达利耶派”的异端群体的出现。然而，他并没有因为这段圣训与自己的偏见相符，并认为先知据称预言了盖达利耶派而将其视为神迹加以接受，反而依据自己的圣训评判原则拒绝了这段圣训的记载。
Abu Hatim was also asked about another hadith that reads, “Every Nation has a Majus and the Majus of my Nation are the Qadariyyah. If they get sick, don't visit them and if they die, don't pray over them.” He replied, “This hadith is false.41” In this second hadith Abu Hatim is asked about, note that the hadith support his biases against the qadariyyah. Furthermore, the hadith belongs to the Dala’il Al-Nubuwwah (Proofs of Prophethood) genre, as it foretells the existence of a heretical group known as the “qadariyyah.” Instead of accepting this hadith that falls in line with his bias, and hailing it as a miracle, due to the Prophet allegedly foretelling the Qadariyyah, he rejects the hadith report in accordance with his hadith principles.
当阿布·祖尔阿被问及圣训“盖达里叶派的言论即是不信道”时，他回答说：“依我看，这是虚假的。”42 关于阿布·哈提姆所说的，同样也可以用于阿布·祖尔阿。他并不反对预言类的圣训体裁，而这段圣训正属于此类；他与盖达里叶派之间也毫无情面可言。他和阿布·哈提姆关于盖达里叶派的明确表态，前文已经提及。
在所举的四个圣训例子中，我们看到，圣训评论家对这些传述的裁定是以其圣训原则为依据的，而不是受其偏见的左右，甚至与其偏见相悖。虽然这里提到的圣训评论家显然并非没有鲜明的观点和偏见，但通过所举的例子，他们客观运用圣训方法的情况已经显而易见。归根结底，即使某位传述者属于与其相互竞争、相互对立的神学派别，圣训评论家也不会让这一点影响他对该传述者可靠性的判断。反过来，如果其神学同道之中有人应当受到批评，他们共同的神学归属和偏见也不会使他们忽视这些传述者明显的问题。此外，正如前面的例子所显示的，他们的神学偏见也没有蒙蔽他们对那些明确支持其神学立场的圣训的判断。
When Abu Zur’ah was asked about the hadith, “The discourse of the Qadariyyah is disbelief,” he replied, “This is false in my opinion.42” The same that was said about Abu Hatim, may also be said about Abu Zur’ah as well. He has no qualms with the genre of prophecies, of which this hadith is from, and there is no love lost between him and the qadariyyah; his and Abu Hatim’s express statements on the qadariyyah have already been mentioned. In the four hadith examples presented, we observed that the rulings of the hadith critics on these reports were informed by their hadith principles, as opposed and in spite of their biases. While the Hadith Critics mentioned here were clearly not without strong opinions on issues and biases, through the examples given, their objective application of hadith method became apparent. When it came down to it, even though a transmitter was from a competing and opposing theological group, the Hadith Critic didn’t allow this to impair his judgment on the reliability of the transmitter. On the flip side of the coin, if one of their theological brethren was worthy of being criticized, their shared theological ascriptions and biases didn’t lead them to overlook the obvious problems in said transmitters. Additionally, as observed in the preceding examples, their theological biases didn’t cloud their judgment on hadith reports in express support of those same theological biases.