Does the phrase "on the condition of the two Shaykhs" mean that their condition is contemporaneity and meeting, or that it is the same men for whom they narrated, or something else?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He says: Does "on the condition of the two Shaykhs" mean that their condition is contemporaneity and meeting, or that it is the same men for whom they narrated, or something else? This is one question.
The Shaykh : Of course, when someone says in the chain of a hadith that it is "on the condition of the two Shaykhs," it means all the conditions that each of them stipulated in his *Sahih*. There is no doubt that al-Bukhari's condition is more precise than Muslim's, because he did not settle for contemporaneity, but rather stipulated meeting.
So we observe that any chain that meets al-Bukhari's condition regarding the meeting between each narrator and his shaykh naturally does not conflict with Muslim's condition, because it is contemporaneity plus more. So when a hadith's chain is of this nature in this regard, it is correct to say that the chain is "on the condition of the two Shaykhs." But the reverse is not true: if a chain does not stipulate connection between the narrator and his shaykh by the condition of meeting, but only by the condition of contemporaneity, then whoever says of such a chain that it is "on the condition of the two Shaykhs" merely because its men are the men of the two Shaykhs is not precise in his expression. This is because al-Bukhari's condition of meeting has not been fulfilled in one of the layers. So in this case, saying it is "on the condition of the two Shaykhs" involves some leniency in expression, because al-Bukhari's condition of meeting has not been fulfilled in this second scenario. This is the answer.
The Shaykh : Of course, when someone says in the chain of a hadith that it is "on the condition of the two Shaykhs," it means all the conditions that each of them stipulated in his *Sahih*. There is no doubt that al-Bukhari's condition is more precise than Muslim's, because he did not settle for contemporaneity, but rather stipulated meeting.
So we observe that any chain that meets al-Bukhari's condition regarding the meeting between each narrator and his shaykh naturally does not conflict with Muslim's condition, because it is contemporaneity plus more. So when a hadith's chain is of this nature in this regard, it is correct to say that the chain is "on the condition of the two Shaykhs." But the reverse is not true: if a chain does not stipulate connection between the narrator and his shaykh by the condition of meeting, but only by the condition of contemporaneity, then whoever says of such a chain that it is "on the condition of the two Shaykhs" merely because its men are the men of the two Shaykhs is not precise in his expression. This is because al-Bukhari's condition of meeting has not been fulfilled in one of the layers. So in this case, saying it is "on the condition of the two Shaykhs" involves some leniency in expression, because al-Bukhari's condition of meeting has not been fulfilled in this second scenario. This is the answer.