The Answer to Ibn Rushayd’s Criticism of Imam Muslim Regarding the Condition of Meeting and Its Absence in Establishing Hearing

The questioner : Ibn Rushayd objected to Muslim by saying that if a narrator lived in the same era as the narrator from whom he reported, and his hearing from him is established, along with his being free from tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain); then his report from him in a form that is not an explicit text of hearing is to be understood as connected with certainty.

The Shaykh : Who is this response directed at?

The questioner : At Muslim, meaning in his ruling...

The Shaykh : Why...?

The questioner : Meaning, he is refuting him.

Another questioner : He has not finished his statement.

The questioner : Yes, the statement has not ended.

Another questioner : Meaning, this is Muslim’s opinion which Ibn Rushayd will refute in the following speech; it has not ended yet. He says: Ibn Rushayd objected to Muslim in this statement.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The objection has not...

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : That if a narrator lived in the same era as the narrator from whom he reported, and his hearing from him is established, along with his being free from tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain); then his report from him in a form that is not an explicit text of hearing is to be understood as connected with certainty. However, if the meeting is not established, certainty of connection is not reached with it, because if the first one reports from someone he heard from using the 'an (from) formula without having heard from him, he would be a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain), and he is not such a person, so hearing is established with certainty, unlike the one from whom hearing is not established. So what is the answer to that?

The Shaykh : I did not understand where the objection is.

The questioner : Meaning: if he reports from his shaykh (scholar or teacher) and he has heard from him; because al-Bukhari conditions hearing, even if only once. So if he heard from him, along with being free from the stigma of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain), his use of 'an (from) thereafter is to be understood as connected, because he is free from tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain). However, if there was no hearing, if he reported from him in a form that allows for hearing or otherwise; then it means no, tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) is not attributed to him because he might be a musil (one who omits a link in the chain).

Another questioner : He is speaking about the meeting, my shaykh (scholar or teacher), meaning Ibn Rushayd’s criticism of Imam Muslim regarding the issue of the meeting and its absence.

The Shaykh : The non-conditioning of the meeting.

The questioner : The meeting, yes.

Another questioner : Therefore he says: However, if the meeting is not established, it seems to me that this is where Ibn Rushayd’s criticism lies.

The questioner: Yes.

Another questioner : However, if the meeting is not established, certainty of connection is not reached with it; because if the first one reports from someone he heard from using the 'an (from) formula without having heard from him, he would be a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain), and he is not such a person, so hearing is established with certainty, unlike the one from whom hearing is not established. The speech is not clear, is it good, my shaykh (scholar or teacher)?

The Shaykh : I had written a word on the topic, do you remember where?
The student : In "Al-Silsilah al-Sahihah" (The Authentic Chain), in the sixth volume, in a word in your comments on "Ighathat al-Lahfan" (Relief for the Distressed), my shaykh (scholar or teacher) - also - but we did not see it, he only mentioned it to us.

The Shaykh : I have a response to those who advocate for the condition of the meeting, but I do not have the answer to this doubt at the moment, look for it for me. I mentioned in some of my comments and takhrij (tracing a hadith to its sources) that al-Bukhari’s condition of the meeting and his not being satisfied with mere contemporaneity is a condition of perfection, not a condition of validity; because I found his excellent student, Abu Isa al-Tirmidhi, in his book known as "Al-Sunan" (The Sunan), mentioned a hadith and graded it as hasan (a good hadith), and transmitted this grading from Imam al-Bukhari, and there is no condition in the narrator or in any of the narrators from his shaykh (scholar or teacher) that the meeting is established. I wrote this in some of the takhrij (tracing a hadith to its sources) and comments, and I do not want to go far; so what is on your mind now, and our brother "Abu al-Harith" is present and we benefit from the discussion with him, so I say: O Abu al-Harith, I bring against Ibn Rushayd what he brought against Muslim.

The questioner : Do you turn it back on him?

The Shaykh : Yes, so I say: this possibility that he raised against Muslim, I raise it against him, considering that he adopted al-Bukhari’s school of thought, which is the condition of the meeting. So I say: the possibility applies; meaning, is it not permissible for a man to have heard from his shaykh (scholar or teacher) and his meeting with him to be established many, many times, and yet is it not permissible for him to commit tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain)?

The questioner : Yes, you may.

The Shaykh : It is permissible, so what is the difference then between this application and that application? The possibility applies to both schools of thought completely, and there is absolutely no difference. So I hope if you have something now, you raise it and we will hear it, otherwise think about it.

The questioner : They say with the denial of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain), meaning your eminence said: it is refuted against him that he commits tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain), but he said: with the denial of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) from him, meaning that...

The Shaykh : How do we deny tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain)?

The questioner : Meaning, the narrator who reports from someone he heard from and he is not a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain).

The Shaykh : How did we know that he is not a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain)?

The questioner : Meaning, it is not established that he is a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain).

The Shaykh : And this - also - is said in the same school of thought of Muslim: it is not established that he is a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain).

The questioner : It is not established that he is a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain), but he might be a musil (one who omits a link in the chain).

The Shaykh : And that one also, are there not many imams - for example - like Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab who reported a lot from Abu Hurayrah and from others, yet he is a musil (one who omits a link in the chain)? All of this is possible; therefore, as we said: not knowing something does not imply knowing it.

The questioner : Does he report as musil (one who omits a link in the chain) from Abu Hurayrah?

The Shaykh: Huh?

The questioner : Does he report as musil (one who omits a link in the chain) from Abu Hurayrah?

The Shaykh : He reports as musil (one who omits a link in the chain) from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

The questioner : No, he reports as musil (one who omits a link in the chain) from the narrator himself.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : Meaning, since he was not a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain), if tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) is denied from him and he reports from him using the 'an (from) formula, it might be that he reported from him through an intermediary, and he dropped this intermediary.

The Shaykh : And he would be a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain).

The questioner : He would not be a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain); because he did not hear from him.

The Shaykh : And he would be a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain) if he dropped the intermediary.

The questioner : If he dropped it and he did not hear from him, is he described as committing tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain)? And he did not hear from him.

The Shaykh : The example of Sa'id.

The questioner: From Abu Hurayrah.

The Shaykh : He heard from Abu Hurayrah.

The questioner : Yes, so if he reports from him.

The Shaykh : He reported a hadith from Abu Hurayrah, and there was an intermediary between him and Abu Hurayrah, so he dropped the intermediary.

The questioner : And he reported it from Abu Hurayrah.

The Shaykh : Yes, would he not be a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain)?

The questioner : He would be a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain).

The Shaykh : All right!

The questioner : So if tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) is denied from him.

The Shaykh : How did we deny tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) from him?

The questioner : Meaning that...

The Shaykh : The question now, please let us stop, how do we deny tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain)? We cannot say anything except that we do not know that so-and-so commits tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain).

The questioner : With the non-establishment of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) from him.

The Shaykh : Is there a difference between this phrase and what I said earlier? We do not know that so-and-so is a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain).

The questioner : We do not know that he is a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain).

The Shaykh : Is there a difference?

The questioner : Yes, we do not know that he is a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain), that is more precise, of course.

The Shaykh : Okay, so we say: any narrator who reports from a shaykh (scholar or teacher) of his according to the school of thought of Muslim, they raise the possibility that he committed tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) from him.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Possibility.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, the same possibility we raise against the school of thought of al-Bukhari, and I have said more than once that there is no difference, and if there is a difference, bring it so we can see?

The questioner : Meaning, they say - for example - that since he did not become famous for committing tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) frequently, the default ruling is based on the preponderance of probability.

The Shaykh : You say: he did not commit tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) frequently. We are discussing now whether tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) is established or not? Is the denial of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) established or not? Establishing tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) is a factual matter.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Denying tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) is a negative matter.

The questioner : Negative, yes.

The Shaykh : Meaning, we do not know that he committed tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain).

The questioner : We do not know.

The Shaykh : And we proceed on this basis.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : We proceed on this basis, because it is not permissible to accuse a Muslim of something that is a flaw or a defect unless it is established. So any narrator, whether he reports from someone who was his contemporary or from someone he met, in terms of possibility, it is possible that he commits tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) from someone he met, or it is not possible. If it is established that there is a possibility that he committed tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain), he becomes a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain) and we take caution from him. However, if it is not established, we do not take caution from him, whether he reports from someone who was his contemporary or from someone he met; there is no difference between the two matters. What did you come up with, Professor?

Another questioner : There are things, my shaykh (scholar or teacher), may Allah bless.

The questioner : No, meaning, it is possible that he reported as musil (one who omits a link in the chain), not that he committed tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain), he reported as musil (one who omits a link in the chain).

Another questioner : Meaning, he reported from someone.

The questioner : From whom he did not hear.

Another questioner : From whom he did not hear.

The questioner : Because hearing is not established for us.

Another questioner : Hidden omission (of a link).

The questioner : Meaning, now the contemporaneity is established.

The Shaykh : No problem, my brother, but since we are distinguishing now between committing tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) and reporting as musil (one who omits a link in the chain).

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, whether we want to say: it is possible that he committed tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) or it is possible that he reported as musil (one who omits a link in the chain); does the possibility cast doubt on the trustworthy narrator?

The questioner : No, it casts doubt on the connection, it does not cast doubt on the narrator.

The Shaykh : That is it, the trustworthy narrator says from someone who was his contemporary: so-and-so said.

The questioner : Yes, from so-and-so.

The Shaykh : No problem, we are not linking the narration between him and the shaykh (scholar or teacher) now, between him and the contemporary shaykh (scholar or teacher) with the contemporaneity.

The questioner : He said: from so-and-so.

The Shaykh : He said: from so-and-so.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, this narrator reports from this shaykh (scholar or teacher) using the 'an (from) formula.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : We say: there is a possibility of tadlis, as we used to say.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Now you are saying: it is isnad.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : All right, what is the weight of this possibility? Does every possibility have validity from the perspective of scrutiny? What is its weight? If we were presenting the hadith earlier as it is possible that this was tadlis, and I think this is what came in al-Tahrir here, now we have removed the word tadlis and replaced it with isnad; is that not so?

The questioner : Yes, isnad, yes.

The Shaykh : Just as this possibility of isnad applies to a narrator who is a contemporary of the narrator from whom he narrated.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Similarly, tadlis applies, tadlis from the narrator who narrated from his shaykh whom he was a contemporary of using the 'an 'an formula.

The questioner : And he heard from him.

The Shaykh : He met him and heard from him, but he narrated from him using the 'an 'an formula, he narrated from him using the 'an 'an formula.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I am repeating the previous scenario: just as that isnad is possible for the one who narrated from someone he was a contemporary of and whose meeting with him is not established, so too is tadlis possible from this narrator who narrated from someone he met, but narrated from him using the 'an 'an formula; is it not possible that he committed tadlis?

The questioner : But they say: it is required that he not be a mudallis (one who commits tadlis).

The Shaykh : It has become a circle; how did we know that he is not a mudallis?

The questioner : He was not described as committing tadlis.

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner : This is the Shaykh's statement from the beginning: tadlis has not been established against him.

Another questioner : He was not described as committing tadlis.

The Shaykh : And this is also the case.

The questioner : So the original presumption is that he is not a mudallis.

The Shaykh-- ... Where are you? Tell him you have guests, apologize to him --
I mean, the possibility, even if the wording differs now, is valid in terms of meaning. Your answer is that he was not described as committing tadlis.

The questioner : He was not described, yes.

The Shaykh : And this - also - was not described as isnad, as you are saying now; this - also - was not described as isnad.

Another questioner : Did you notice this possibility?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : The discussion comes back to the fact that not every possibility has validity from the perspective of scrutiny. This is how Imam Muslim proceeded, and how the majority of Muslim scholars proceeded. I mentioned, in this research and in others, that Imam al-Nawawi, in the introduction to "Sahih Muslim," leans toward al-Bukhari's school, but in al-Mustalah he leaned toward Muslim's school. Practically, one cannot rely on anything but Muslim's school unless tadlis is established for this contemporary. All right, I did not hear you.

Another questioner : By Allah - O our Shaykh - truly, your last words just now reminded me of a statement here that says this involves demolition, meaning.

The Shaykh : Certainly, I am not telling you that.

Another questioner : Let us look at this first, then we will return to that.

The Shaykh: Yes.