判断传述者的可靠性，其方法多种多样，对某位传述者的最终评判通常是综合运用其中数种方法的结果，而非仅凭一种方法。这种方法上的多样性使结论具有很高的可信度。当多种方法都指向某位传述者可靠时，往往说明我们找到了正确的方向。反之亦然：当多种方法都使我们认为某位传述者不诚实或不可靠时，我们应当对这些结论充满信心。就本书而言，我们只考察其中两种方法。在此之前，读者应当注意，这些方法所蕴含的意义各不相同。对于某些方法，其结果仅能说明传述者诚实，别无其他；而对于另一些方法，其结果则不仅说明诚实，还隐含着记忆准确和精确度高的意义。 圣训学者判断可靠性时所采用的第一种方法，是将某位传述者的传述与其他人的传述进行互相比对。一位传述者所传述的全部或大部分内容，可称为其“传述汇集”。圣训学者会选定一位特定的传述者，开始比对该传述者的传述汇集与其他人所传述的内容。学者所关注的，实质上是这位传述者的传述汇集如何与其他传述汇集相互作用。这一汇集是否与其他汇集相吻合？它是否包含大量独有的、为其他人所没有的传述？更糟的是，这一特定的传述汇集是否与其他汇集相矛盾？圣训学者甚至会审视某一特定的传述汇集，观察其中各条传述彼此之间如何相互关联。 这个传述集合内部的传述是否彼此一致?还是其中包含不一致之处?如果能够证明存在一定程度的印证,即该传述集合与其姊妹集合在它们共有的传述上相互吻合,且该集合内部没有不一致之处,这便清楚地表明负责该传述集合的传述人既在记忆上准确,在转述上也诚实。前面所说的并非早期圣训批评家的裁定所作的临时性解释,也不是把现代的真实性观念投射到不明确的做法或早期学者模糊的言论之上。恰恰相反,这些观念明确地见于早期圣训批评家的言辞和做法之中。

The methods of judging transmitters and determining their reliability are diverse and the final judgment on a given transmitter is usually the result of applying several of these methods to the transmitter and not sufficing with only one method. This diversity in application lends the results a great deal of credibility. When multiple methods lead us to believe a transmitter is reliable, it probably means we are on to something. The opposite applies as well; when multiple methods lead us to believe a transmitter to be dishonest or unreliable, we should be confident in these results. For the purpose of this book, we will only survey two of these methods. Before we do that, the reader should note that the implications of these methods differ. For some methods, the results would be indicative of honesty but nothing else. For other methods, the results would indicate accurate retention and precision as well as honesty by implication The first method used by hadith critics in determining the reliability is the cross-examination of a transmitter’s transmission to that of others. A collection of all or most of a certain transmitter’s transmission may be termed as a “pool of transmission.” A hadith critic would choose a specific transmitter and begin cross-examining the transmitter’s pool of transmission to what others transmit. What the hadith critic looks for is, in effect, how this particular transmitter’s pool of transmission interacts with other pools of transmission. Is the pool of transmission consistent with other pools of transmission? Does this particular pool of transmission contain much unique transmission, exclusive to it, to the exclusion of others? Or worse yet, does this specific pool of transmission contradict other pools of transmission? The hadith critics will even look at a specific pool of transmission and observe how the transmission contained therein to interact with each other. Is the transmission contained in this particular pool consistent with each other? Or are their inconsistencies contained therein? If it can be shown that there is a level of corroboration, such that the pool of transmission in question is in agreement with its sister pools on the common transmission between them and the pool is internally intact from inconsistencies, this is a clear indication that the transmitter responsible for this pool of transmission is both accurate in their retention and honest in their transmission. What preceded isn’t an ad hoc explanation of the rulings by early hadith critics, where modern ideas of authenticity are projected on unclear practices or ambiguous quotes by early scholars. On the contrary, these ideas are found expressly in the words as well as practices of the early hadith critics.