This . . . The questioner's book: The book . . . The Shaykh: Yes, the questioner: He says, he spoke about the narrators of Qatadah, and he quotes from al-Bardiji, saying:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : This ... book
The questioner : Book ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : He says, he spoke about the narrators of Qatadah, and he quotes from al-Bardiji, saying: "As for the hadiths of Qatadah that the shaykhs narrate, such as Hammad ibn Salama, Hammad, Aban, and al-Awza'i, one should look into the hadith. If the hadith is preserved from a route other than theirs from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and from Anas ibn Malik from another angle, it is not rejected. But if it is not known from anyone from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) nor from a route from Anas except from the narration I mentioned to you, it is munkar (denounced)." End of quote.
The Shaykh : This is the opinion of this speaker, al-Bardiji, and it is said about him what he said about those who narrate from Qatadah as munkar (denounced), because the meaning of this is that we would reject many hadiths in the two Sahihs that we do not find except from the route of Qatadah from Anas. The secret in this is that Qatadah, it is true, was a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains).
The questioner : ... from him Hammad or
The Shaykh : Yes, I mean, they are famous shaykhs, I mean, Hammad is among the men of Muslim, as you know, and we mentioned Hammad
The questioner : Hammad ibn Salama, Hammad, Aban, and al-Awza'i
The Shaykh : Yes, all of them are imams. If we set Hammad aside, considering that al-Bukhari did not use him as evidence, the others were used as evidence by the two Shaykhs. So the important thing is that if we adopt this statement, it means that we would reject many hadiths in the two Sahihs.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and Allah's mercy and blessings.
From a route other than Hammad, for example.
The questioner : The hadiths that al-Bukhari and Muslim brought from Qatadah, do ... I mean, do they not have a second route?
The Shaykh : It is not absolutely necessary, at least, at least, look at what results. Who do you think is capable of knowing or testifying that a certain route in the two Sahihs or one of them from Qatadah from Anas has another route, as our friend wants? Who is able to enter this narrow entrance? The general people or the special people?
The questioner : The special of the special.
The Shaykh : Well done, you got ahead of me. The special of the special, indeed. If the matter is so, then what is the position of those who are the special, not the special of the special? What is the position of those who are below the special, who read in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim and find the narration from the route of Qatadah, and they rule that this is munkar (denounced)? Do they stop? No, then we have nullified the benefit from the two Sahihs.
The truth, if it becomes clear to us in a narration of Qatadah from Anas that there is a decisive defect, we leave off using his hadith as evidence.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh :- Peace be upon you - Even if it is in the two Sahihs. I mean, there is a difference between making the default rule not to use the narration of Qatadah from An as evidence, even if it is in the two Sahihs, and reversing it and saying the default rule is to use it as evidence, except if it becomes clear through the people of knowledge of this narration that there is a decisive defect.
The questioner : ... Qatadah, does it mean it is accepted sometimes and left sometimes, or is there a criterion for this issue?
The Shaykh : There is no criterion except the rule: the default is that the narrator from Qatadah, if he is trustworthy like Hammad, let alone those above him, the default is that his narration is accepted, except as I said earlier, if a defect appears, then that is what prevents us from taking it, and not merely that he is a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains), otherwise we would return, as we said, to demolishing and wasting the narrations of Qatadah from Anas in the two Sahihs.
The questioner : In other than the two Sahihs, in the two Sahihs, I mean al-Bukhari and Muslim.
The Shaykh : The answer is general, covering what is in the two Sahihs and what is outside the two Sahihs. The default is that we take the narration of Qatadah from Anas, because he was not one who frequently engaged in tadlis (concealment of defects in chains), as is the case, for example, with Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir and the like, except if a defect appears. Yes.
The questioner : Regarding Abu Bakr al-Bardiji, the munkar (denounced) in his terminology is the fard (isolated narration), as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says. The munkar (denounced) in al-Bardiji's terminology is the fard (isolated narration) that has no supporting chain.
The Shaykh : It is possible that these are terminologies that differ, but what is the context of the phrase? What is derived from it? Is this restriction derived from it? I do not think so.
The questioner : Abu Bakr al-Bardiji
The Shaykh : ... Please, let's go.
The Shaykh : This ... book
The questioner : Book ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : He says, he spoke about the narrators of Qatadah, and he quotes from al-Bardiji, saying: "As for the hadiths of Qatadah that the shaykhs narrate, such as Hammad ibn Salama, Hammad, Aban, and al-Awza'i, one should look into the hadith. If the hadith is preserved from a route other than theirs from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and from Anas ibn Malik from another angle, it is not rejected. But if it is not known from anyone from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) nor from a route from Anas except from the narration I mentioned to you, it is munkar (denounced)." End of quote.
The Shaykh : This is the opinion of this speaker, al-Bardiji, and it is said about him what he said about those who narrate from Qatadah as munkar (denounced), because the meaning of this is that we would reject many hadiths in the two Sahihs that we do not find except from the route of Qatadah from Anas. The secret in this is that Qatadah, it is true, was a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains).
The questioner : ... from him Hammad or
The Shaykh : Yes, I mean, they are famous shaykhs, I mean, Hammad is among the men of Muslim, as you know, and we mentioned Hammad
The questioner : Hammad ibn Salama, Hammad, Aban, and al-Awza'i
The Shaykh : Yes, all of them are imams. If we set Hammad aside, considering that al-Bukhari did not use him as evidence, the others were used as evidence by the two Shaykhs. So the important thing is that if we adopt this statement, it means that we would reject many hadiths in the two Sahihs.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and Allah's mercy and blessings.
From a route other than Hammad, for example.
The questioner : The hadiths that al-Bukhari and Muslim brought from Qatadah, do ... I mean, do they not have a second route?
The Shaykh : It is not absolutely necessary, at least, at least, look at what results. Who do you think is capable of knowing or testifying that a certain route in the two Sahihs or one of them from Qatadah from Anas has another route, as our friend wants? Who is able to enter this narrow entrance? The general people or the special people?
The questioner : The special of the special.
The Shaykh : Well done, you got ahead of me. The special of the special, indeed. If the matter is so, then what is the position of those who are the special, not the special of the special? What is the position of those who are below the special, who read in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim and find the narration from the route of Qatadah, and they rule that this is munkar (denounced)? Do they stop? No, then we have nullified the benefit from the two Sahihs.
The truth, if it becomes clear to us in a narration of Qatadah from Anas that there is a decisive defect, we leave off using his hadith as evidence.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh :- Peace be upon you - Even if it is in the two Sahihs. I mean, there is a difference between making the default rule not to use the narration of Qatadah from An as evidence, even if it is in the two Sahihs, and reversing it and saying the default rule is to use it as evidence, except if it becomes clear through the people of knowledge of this narration that there is a decisive defect.
The questioner : ... Qatadah, does it mean it is accepted sometimes and left sometimes, or is there a criterion for this issue?
The Shaykh : There is no criterion except the rule: the default is that the narrator from Qatadah, if he is trustworthy like Hammad, let alone those above him, the default is that his narration is accepted, except as I said earlier, if a defect appears, then that is what prevents us from taking it, and not merely that he is a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains), otherwise we would return, as we said, to demolishing and wasting the narrations of Qatadah from Anas in the two Sahihs.
The questioner : In other than the two Sahihs, in the two Sahihs, I mean al-Bukhari and Muslim.
The Shaykh : The answer is general, covering what is in the two Sahihs and what is outside the two Sahihs. The default is that we take the narration of Qatadah from Anas, because he was not one who frequently engaged in tadlis (concealment of defects in chains), as is the case, for example, with Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir and the like, except if a defect appears. Yes.
The questioner : Regarding Abu Bakr al-Bardiji, the munkar (denounced) in his terminology is the fard (isolated narration), as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says. The munkar (denounced) in al-Bardiji's terminology is the fard (isolated narration) that has no supporting chain.
The Shaykh : It is possible that these are terminologies that differ, but what is the context of the phrase? What is derived from it? Is this restriction derived from it? I do not think so.
The questioner : Abu Bakr al-Bardiji
The Shaykh : ... Please, let's go.