Until we rule that a hadith is on the condition of the two Shaykhs, is it required that the chain be in the same sequence?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : All right, O Shaykh, is it required that the chain be in the same sequence?
The Shaykh : In the same sequence?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : What do you mean by sequence?
The questioner : I mean the order, if we have a chain of narration.
The Shaykh : We said that for every narrator and his shaykh, regarding the condition of al-Bukhari, it is required that their meeting be established, and mere contemporaneity is not sufficient.
The questioner : That is not what I mean. I mean, is it required that the two Shaykhs, or one of them, have narrated this chain in this sequence? As the Hafiz says: in the sequence.
The Shaykh : Sequence? What do you want? We are currently discussing whether contemporaneity is sufficient or whether a meeting is required.
The questioner : The discussion is broader than that; it is the condition of the two Shaykhs.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : Is it required for us to say that this hadith is on the condition of the two Shaykhs that it be in the same sequence in which they narrated it?
The Shaykh : Perhaps you mean by "in the same sequence" what you mentioned earlier, namely: the chain of Zayd from 'Amr, both of whom are narrators in al-Bukhari, but Zayd did not narrate from 'Amr in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. Are we clear up to this point?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But Zayd narrated from Ahmad ibn Fulan, and he met him, so al-Bukhari verified this aspect. However, specifically because Zayd, in al-Bukhari, does not narrate except from 'Amr, this was not fulfilled here. So you mean by sequence this form, and not the other form, namely Zayd from Ahmad. Is that what you mean?
The questioner : In the entire chain.
The Shaykh : I understand. Of course, this is not required, and this has already been answered, hasn't it?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : In the same sequence?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : What do you mean by sequence?
The questioner : I mean the order, if we have a chain of narration.
The Shaykh : We said that for every narrator and his shaykh, regarding the condition of al-Bukhari, it is required that their meeting be established, and mere contemporaneity is not sufficient.
The questioner : That is not what I mean. I mean, is it required that the two Shaykhs, or one of them, have narrated this chain in this sequence? As the Hafiz says: in the sequence.
The Shaykh : Sequence? What do you want? We are currently discussing whether contemporaneity is sufficient or whether a meeting is required.
The questioner : The discussion is broader than that; it is the condition of the two Shaykhs.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : Is it required for us to say that this hadith is on the condition of the two Shaykhs that it be in the same sequence in which they narrated it?
The Shaykh : Perhaps you mean by "in the same sequence" what you mentioned earlier, namely: the chain of Zayd from 'Amr, both of whom are narrators in al-Bukhari, but Zayd did not narrate from 'Amr in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. Are we clear up to this point?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But Zayd narrated from Ahmad ibn Fulan, and he met him, so al-Bukhari verified this aspect. However, specifically because Zayd, in al-Bukhari, does not narrate except from 'Amr, this was not fulfilled here. So you mean by sequence this form, and not the other form, namely Zayd from Ahmad. Is that what you mean?
The questioner : In the entire chain.
The Shaykh : I understand. Of course, this is not required, and this has already been answered, hasn't it?
The questioner : Yes.