عمل بما رووه في حال الاستقامة و ترك ما رووه في حال خطائهم و لأجل ذلك عملت الطائفة بما رواه أبو الخطاب في حال استقامته و تركوا ما رواه في حال تخليطه و كذا القول في أحمد بن هلال العبرتائي و ابن أبي غراقر فأما ما يروونه في حال تخليطهم فلا يجوز العمل به على حال و كذا القول فيما يرويه المتهمون و المضعفون إن كان هناك ما يعضد روايتهم و يدل على صحتها وجب العمل به و إن لم يكن هنا ما يشهد لروايتهم بالصحة وجب التوقف في أخبارهم و لأجل ذلك توقف المشايخ في أخبار كثيرة هذه صورتها و لم يرووها و استثنوها في فهارسهم من جملة ما يروونه من المصنفات و أما من كان مخطئا في بعض الأفعال أو فاسقا في أفعال الجوارح و كان ثقة في روايته متحرزا فيها فإن ذلك لا يوجب رد خبره و يجوز العمل به لأن العدالة المطلوبة في الرواية حاصلة فيه و إنما الفسق بأفعال الجوارح يمنع من قبول شهادته و ليس بمانع من قبول خبره و لأجل ذلك قبلت الطائفة أخبار جماعة هذه صفتهم.

As for what the exaggerators have related: if they are among those whose state was known to be sound and who afterwards took to exaggeration, what they transmitted in the time of their sound belief is acted upon, and what they transmitted in the time of their doctrinal error is left aside. For this reason the Shi'a have acted upon the report which Abu al-Khattab transmitted in the time of his sound belief; but what he transmitted in the time of his doctrinal error they have left aside. And likewise these points apply to Ahmad b. Hilal al-'Abartai and Ibn Abi 'Azaqir. What these men transmitted in the time of their doctrinal error is not permissible to act upon. And the same point applies to those who are suspect and weak. If the narration they transmitted is one that something confirms and corroborates as sound, it is acted upon; but if nothing is found to corroborate the soundness of their narration, one must halt at the report of these two groups. For this reason the great scholars have halted at many reports of this kind and have not transmitted the narration, and in their indexes they have all made an exception of what is related from their compositions. But if the narrator was one who erred in some of his affairs and was a transgressor in some of his affairs, yet was reliable in transmitting narration and kept clear of transgression at the time of transmitting, then his report must not be rejected and acting upon it is permissible, because the justice required in narration has been realised in this case; and his transgression in his deeds causes his testimony not to be accepted but does not prevent the acceptance of his report. For this reason the Shi'i community has accepted the reports of this group with this quality.

ثم قال رحمه اللّٰه و إذا كان أحد الراويين مسندا و الآخر مرسلا نظر في حال المرسل فإن كان ممن يعلم أنه لا يرسل إلا عن ثقة يوثق به فلا ترجيح لخبر غيره على خبره و لأجل ذلك سوت الطائفة بين ما يرويه محمد بن أبي عمير و صفوان بن يحيی و أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر و غيرهم من الثقات الذين عرفوا بأنهم لا يروون و لا يرسلون إلا ممن يوثق به و بين ما أسنده غيرهم و لذلك عملوا بمرسلهم إذا انفرد عن رواية غيرهم فأما إذا لم يكن كذلك و يكون لمن يرسل عن ثقة و غير ثقة فإنه يقدم خبر غيره عليه فإذا انفرد وجب التوقف في خبره إلى أن يدل دليل على وجوب العمل به فأما إذا انفردت المراسيل فيجوز العمل بها على الشرط الذي ذكرناه و دليلنا على ذلك الأدلة التي سنذكرها على جواز العمل بأخبار الآحاد فإن الطائفة كما عملت بالمسانيد عملت بالمراسيل فما يطعن في واحد منهما يطعن في الآخر و ما أجاز أحدهما أجاز الآخر فلا فرق بينهما على حال.

Then the late shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said: And if one of the two narrators has a connected chain and the other a severed one, we look at the one with the severed chain: if it is known that this narrator does not sever the chain except from a trustworthy man in whom he has confidence, then another's report is not preferred over his. For this reason the Shi'i community has treated as equal what Muhammad b. Abi 'Umayr, Safwan b. Yahya, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr and others of these trustworthy men — who are known not to relate and not to sever the chain unless they have heard the narration from those who are reliable — and what others have transmitted with a complete chain. For this very reason they have transmitted the chainless narrations of these men on their own. But if it is not so, and he has severed the chain both from trustworthy and from untrustworthy men, then another's report takes precedence over his; and if he is alone in transmitting this narration, one must halt until a proof is found for the obligation of acting upon that report. And if he transmits hadiths only with a severed chain, then, with the condition stated earlier, acting upon it will be permissible; and our proof is those demonstrations which we shall mention afterwards for the permissibility of acting upon single reports. So the Shi'i community acts upon a narration whose chain has been severed just as it acts upon a narration with a chain; and whatever blame attaches to either of these attaches to the other too, and if either is permitted, the other is permitted too. So there is no difference between the connected and the severed.

ثم قال نور اللّٰه ضريحه فما اخترته من المذهب و هو أن خبر الواحد إذا كان واردا من طريق أصحابنا القائلين بالإمامة و كان ذلك مرويا عن النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه و آله و عن أحد من

Then the late shaykh — may God illumine his tomb — says: The way I have chosen is this: that if a single report comes by the way of our companions who hold to the imamate, and that narration is related from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family, and from one of