What is the correct understanding of their saying: “Sahih according to the condition of both” or “according to the condition of al-Bukhari” or “Muslim”? Is it by the same narrators or by their like?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: Our teacher, regarding the question, and even though my knowledge is an addition, but so that it is not forgotten.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: The scholars’ saying, my teacher: “Its chain is sahih according to the condition of al-Bukhari, or according to the condition of Muslim, or according to the condition of both.” It is as if I saw in the words of the people of knowledge (may Allah have mercy on them) a difference in the precise formulation of this phrase. Some say: merely the inclusion of the men by al-Bukhari or Muslim is the condition. And some say: No, the matter is more precise than that: rather, it is necessary for the narrator to be in a continuous chain from narrator to narrator to the end of the chain. That is, we do not rule that a chain is according to the condition of Muslim unless Muslim included it with the same chain.
The Shaykh: That is, if Zayd narrates from 'Amr.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: And Ahmad narrated from 'Amr, and all of them are included in the Sahih, it is not said that this is according to his condition. Is there anything else?
The questioner: This is the difficulty. For example, the narration of 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas, and Sammak from 'Ikrimah. He included them, but he did not include from them together... due to the confusion.
The Shaykh: Is this the apparent issue in the research between you and Ibrahim?
The questioner: Which Ibrahim?
The Shaykh: The Ibrahim who took your place with Shu'ayb.
The questioner: No.
Another questioner: But what I know is in a research with Hassan, who seems to have transferred the research to there.
The Shaykh: Yes, that is it. Yes, because he asked me this question. I answered him that there are two positions: one is this, and this is not the one acted upon.
The questioner: Which one?
The Shaykh: The first is that it is required, as I gave you an example: al-Bukhari, for example, narrates through the path of Zayd from Ahmad from Bakr, for example. Zayd from Bakr, and he narrates from Ahmad from another person, so Ahmad came.
The questioner: Yes, my teacher.
The Shaykh: So Ahmad came in a chain outside the Sahih. From whom did he narrate? From Zayd’s teacher, who is Bakr. This is not in the Sahih, but the total of the men.
The questioner: He is present.
The Shaykh: Is present according to the condition of the Sahih.
The questioner: Correct.
The Shaykh: So the first picture that you related, this means if it is available, there is no disagreement that it is according to the conditionThe Shaykh : OrThe Shaykh : of the two, but this is practically not adhered to. It is sufficient that the men are all from the teachersThe Shaykh : OrThe Shaykh : of the two, without the condition of direct narration from each one to the other.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Except in one case, which is of course known to those who work with hadith: if the narrator who narrated forThe Shaykh : them narrated from a specific teacher.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: And they did not narrate from him from anyone else, then this condition is adhered to. For example: al-Zuhri, who is one of the imams of the Muslims, if Sufyan ibn Husayn or Husayn ibn Sufyan narrated from him, I forget now.
The questioner: Sufyan ibn Husayn.
The Shaykh: Sufyan ibn Husayn. This is not relied upon when he narrates from al-Zuhri, but he is a trustworthy man from the menThe Shaykh : of the two. If he narrates from other than al-Zuhri, he is relied upon. So if Sufyan narrates from al-Zuhri outside the two Sahihs, authenticating it according to the condition of the two Shaykhs specifically for this narration would be an error.
Al-Halabi: Oh my, even though he included for this one and included for this one.
The Shaykh: So you need to say: a middle position. The middle is!
The questioner: Considering the distinctions.
The Shaykh: But, otherwise, the consistent rule is, as you see in al-Mustadrak and other than al-Mustadrak, they do not adhere to this first method at all.
The questioner : Yes, correct.
The Shaykh: And with this picture, it is very difficult to find!
Al-Halabi: A chain according to the condition of both!
The Shaykh: Yes.
Al-Halabi: Except by their exact like.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: The scholars’ saying, my teacher: “Its chain is sahih according to the condition of al-Bukhari, or according to the condition of Muslim, or according to the condition of both.” It is as if I saw in the words of the people of knowledge (may Allah have mercy on them) a difference in the precise formulation of this phrase. Some say: merely the inclusion of the men by al-Bukhari or Muslim is the condition. And some say: No, the matter is more precise than that: rather, it is necessary for the narrator to be in a continuous chain from narrator to narrator to the end of the chain. That is, we do not rule that a chain is according to the condition of Muslim unless Muslim included it with the same chain.
The Shaykh: That is, if Zayd narrates from 'Amr.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: And Ahmad narrated from 'Amr, and all of them are included in the Sahih, it is not said that this is according to his condition. Is there anything else?
The questioner: This is the difficulty. For example, the narration of 'Ikrimah from Ibn 'Abbas, and Sammak from 'Ikrimah. He included them, but he did not include from them together... due to the confusion.
The Shaykh: Is this the apparent issue in the research between you and Ibrahim?
The questioner: Which Ibrahim?
The Shaykh: The Ibrahim who took your place with Shu'ayb.
The questioner: No.
Another questioner: But what I know is in a research with Hassan, who seems to have transferred the research to there.
The Shaykh: Yes, that is it. Yes, because he asked me this question. I answered him that there are two positions: one is this, and this is not the one acted upon.
The questioner: Which one?
The Shaykh: The first is that it is required, as I gave you an example: al-Bukhari, for example, narrates through the path of Zayd from Ahmad from Bakr, for example. Zayd from Bakr, and he narrates from Ahmad from another person, so Ahmad came.
The questioner: Yes, my teacher.
The Shaykh: So Ahmad came in a chain outside the Sahih. From whom did he narrate? From Zayd’s teacher, who is Bakr. This is not in the Sahih, but the total of the men.
The questioner: He is present.
The Shaykh: Is present according to the condition of the Sahih.
The questioner: Correct.
The Shaykh: So the first picture that you related, this means if it is available, there is no disagreement that it is according to the conditionThe Shaykh : OrThe Shaykh : of the two, but this is practically not adhered to. It is sufficient that the men are all from the teachersThe Shaykh : OrThe Shaykh : of the two, without the condition of direct narration from each one to the other.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Except in one case, which is of course known to those who work with hadith: if the narrator who narrated forThe Shaykh : them narrated from a specific teacher.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: And they did not narrate from him from anyone else, then this condition is adhered to. For example: al-Zuhri, who is one of the imams of the Muslims, if Sufyan ibn Husayn or Husayn ibn Sufyan narrated from him, I forget now.
The questioner: Sufyan ibn Husayn.
The Shaykh: Sufyan ibn Husayn. This is not relied upon when he narrates from al-Zuhri, but he is a trustworthy man from the menThe Shaykh : of the two. If he narrates from other than al-Zuhri, he is relied upon. So if Sufyan narrates from al-Zuhri outside the two Sahihs, authenticating it according to the condition of the two Shaykhs specifically for this narration would be an error.
Al-Halabi: Oh my, even though he included for this one and included for this one.
The Shaykh: So you need to say: a middle position. The middle is!
The questioner: Considering the distinctions.
The Shaykh: But, otherwise, the consistent rule is, as you see in al-Mustadrak and other than al-Mustadrak, they do not adhere to this first method at all.
The questioner : Yes, correct.
The Shaykh: And with this picture, it is very difficult to find!
Al-Halabi: A chain according to the condition of both!
The Shaykh: Yes.
Al-Halabi: Except by their exact like.
The Shaykh: Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.