Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) appear to be rough? She said yes, and that he once intended to be rough, so he sent for a forbidden camel, and mentioned the hadith or the wording that
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Sometimes a hadith is cited regarding the addition of trustworthy narrators. Sometimes a hadith is cited in the form of a narration from trustworthy narrators, but you feel that it is abbreviated for the one who brought the narration of a man who was spoken about regarding his memory. For example, the hadith of Shu'bah in Muslim from al-Miqdam ibn Shurayh from his father Shurayh ibn Hani', in which he asked Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), and in it Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to her: to the end. This hadith came through the route of Shurayk from al-Miqdam ibn Shurayh from his father, yes, with a longer wording, in which he asked Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) about roughness: Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) appear to be rough? She said: Yes, and that he once intended to be rough, so he sent for a forbidden camel, and mentioned the hadith or the wording that came in Muslim or close to it.
The Shaykh : And mentioned in it?
The questioner : In it, even though this came from Imam Ahmad through the route of Isra'il. But I am not asking you, meaning, regardless of this narration or the support of Isra'il for Shurayk, but if we assume that it does not exist, then Shurayk's narration alone: can it be said that Shu'bah's narration in Muslim is a case of abbreviation and Shurayk's narration is accepted in its length, or what?
The Shaykh : Ignore Shu'bah's abbreviated narration for now; you have only Shurayk's long narration. What is the ruling on this narration?
The questioner : With Isra'il's narration?
The Shaykh : I am saying now, individually, we left it and held onto Shurayk's narration?
The questioner : Weak.
The Shaykh : Weak. So if a trustworthy narrator narrated the original of the story, does his narration of this original confirm the memory of the weak one or confirm his weakness?
The questioner : It confirms his memory.
The Shaykh : Okay, that is the answer.
The questioner : Can it be said that it is a case of abbreviation?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Can it be said that it is abbreviated?
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible. I did not hear well. I understood or I misunderstood; whichever it was, I do not know. I understood that you are saying the answer to my question is that it confirms his weakness. Did you say that?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So let me repeat the question and you hear the answer. If we ignore Shu'bah's abbreviated narration and return to Shurayk's long narration, assuming it is so, and we agree that this long narration is weak because Shurayk is known for weakness, then my question was: Does Shu'bah's abbreviated narration confirm the weakness of Shu'bah—excuse me—Shurayk, who added to the trustworthy one, or does it confirm that Shurayk preserved it, and he is the weak one?
The questioner : The original first.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : And it is weakness.
The Shaykh : That is what I understood from you. Did you say otherwise?
The questioner : The first one. I said otherwise.
The Shaykh : No problem, it does not matter. The important thing is that the original is that it is weak, and the researcher became more certain of Shurayk's weakness in this long narration, because the mountain in memory is Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaj, who contradicted him and abbreviated his narration. Now you can move to Isra'il's narration. If Isra'il's narration agrees with Shurayk's narration, it is a strong support, and we flip the matter at that time. Assume that Shurayk's narration does not exist and Isra'il's long narration also exists. What is the ruling on his narration: weakness or authenticity?
The questioner : Weakness.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : If you were not mistaken that Isra'il also.
The Shaykh : I understood from you that Shurayk's narration is long.
The questioner : And Isra'il's narration is like it.
The Shaykh : And Isra'il's narration is long. That is what I understood.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Based on this understanding, I said now we leave Shurayk's narration aside.
The questioner : Isra'il.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : We leave Isra'il's narration aside.
The Shaykh : We leave Shurayk's narration aside and take Isra'il's narration. What is the ruling on Isra'il's narration when looking at it alone? Is it like Shurayk's narration, weak, or is it like Shurayk's narration, authentic in itself?
The questioner : Like Shurayk's narration.
The Shaykh : Isra'il.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We say, is Isra'il's narration weak like Shurayk's weak narration, or is it authentic like Shu'bah's narration?
The questioner : It appears that it is authentic like Shu'bah's narration.
The Shaykh : This is it.
The questioner : And that the trustworthy one added here to Shu'bah, so his addition was accepted.
The Shaykh : So now we return. It is a process of subtraction and addition. So if we say that Isra'il's narration is authentic in itself and we add to it what we left aside earlier, which is Shurayk's narration, does it confirm the weakness of Isra'il's narration or give it strength?
The questioner : Isra'il's narration gives strength to Shurayk's narration.
The Shaykh : No, the question is the opposite.
The questioner : And even the opposite, it gives it strength.
The Shaykh : No problem, I want the answer to be according to the question, not for him to flip the question on me, because he might make me understand something he does not want.
The questioner : So repeat the question, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. I say: After we looked at Isra'il's complete narration and studied it for its specificity, we said that Isra'il is a trustworthy man from the men of the two Shaykhs, so his narration is authentic. Now we want to turn to Shurayk's narration, which is like Isra'il's narration, so we consider Shurayk's narration a support for Isra'il's narration. Does this support from Shurayk give Isra'il's narration strength or weakness?
The questioner : It gives it strength.
The Shaykh : That is it. So now, say what you want: Shurayk's narration was strengthened by Isra'il's narration, or do not say that Isra'il's narration was strengthened by Shurayk's narration, but say that it increased in strength. Clear?
The questioner : Clear. We return to the original question, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : And it is that I say: If we assume that Isra'il's narration does not exist, yes, then if such a thing passes us, do we say that this is a case of abbreviation of the story?
The Shaykh : Meaning you returned to where we started, and the answer to this has already been given.
The questioner : I understood from you that it is no.
The Shaykh : It is so.
The questioner : Yes, well done.
O Aisha, be gentle, for gentleness is not placed in anything except that it adorns it
يا عائشة ارفقي فإن الرفق ما وضع في شيء إلا زانهThe Shaykh : And mentioned in it?
The questioner : In it
O Aisha, be gentle, for gentleness is not placed in anything except that it adorns it
يا عائشة ارفق فإن الرفق ما وضع في شيء إلا زانهThe Shaykh : Ignore Shu'bah's abbreviated narration for now; you have only Shurayk's long narration. What is the ruling on this narration?
The questioner : With Isra'il's narration?
The Shaykh : I am saying now, individually, we left it and held onto Shurayk's narration?
The questioner : Weak.
The Shaykh : Weak. So if a trustworthy narrator narrated the original of the story, does his narration of this original confirm the memory of the weak one or confirm his weakness?
The questioner : It confirms his memory.
The Shaykh : Okay, that is the answer.
The questioner : Can it be said that it is a case of abbreviation?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Can it be said that it is abbreviated?
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible. I did not hear well. I understood or I misunderstood; whichever it was, I do not know. I understood that you are saying the answer to my question is that it confirms his weakness. Did you say that?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So let me repeat the question and you hear the answer. If we ignore Shu'bah's abbreviated narration and return to Shurayk's long narration, assuming it is so, and we agree that this long narration is weak because Shurayk is known for weakness, then my question was: Does Shu'bah's abbreviated narration confirm the weakness of Shu'bah—excuse me—Shurayk, who added to the trustworthy one, or does it confirm that Shurayk preserved it, and he is the weak one?
The questioner : The original first.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : And it is weakness.
The Shaykh : That is what I understood from you. Did you say otherwise?
The questioner : The first one. I said otherwise.
The Shaykh : No problem, it does not matter. The important thing is that the original is that it is weak, and the researcher became more certain of Shurayk's weakness in this long narration, because the mountain in memory is Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaj, who contradicted him and abbreviated his narration. Now you can move to Isra'il's narration. If Isra'il's narration agrees with Shurayk's narration, it is a strong support, and we flip the matter at that time. Assume that Shurayk's narration does not exist and Isra'il's long narration also exists. What is the ruling on his narration: weakness or authenticity?
The questioner : Weakness.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : If you were not mistaken that Isra'il also.
The Shaykh : I understood from you that Shurayk's narration is long.
The questioner : And Isra'il's narration is like it.
The Shaykh : And Isra'il's narration is long. That is what I understood.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Based on this understanding, I said now we leave Shurayk's narration aside.
The questioner : Isra'il.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : We leave Isra'il's narration aside.
The Shaykh : We leave Shurayk's narration aside and take Isra'il's narration. What is the ruling on Isra'il's narration when looking at it alone? Is it like Shurayk's narration, weak, or is it like Shurayk's narration, authentic in itself?
The questioner : Like Shurayk's narration.
The Shaykh : Isra'il.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We say, is Isra'il's narration weak like Shurayk's weak narration, or is it authentic like Shu'bah's narration?
The questioner : It appears that it is authentic like Shu'bah's narration.
The Shaykh : This is it.
The questioner : And that the trustworthy one added here to Shu'bah, so his addition was accepted.
The Shaykh : So now we return. It is a process of subtraction and addition. So if we say that Isra'il's narration is authentic in itself and we add to it what we left aside earlier, which is Shurayk's narration, does it confirm the weakness of Isra'il's narration or give it strength?
The questioner : Isra'il's narration gives strength to Shurayk's narration.
The Shaykh : No, the question is the opposite.
The questioner : And even the opposite, it gives it strength.
The Shaykh : No problem, I want the answer to be according to the question, not for him to flip the question on me, because he might make me understand something he does not want.
The questioner : So repeat the question, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. I say: After we looked at Isra'il's complete narration and studied it for its specificity, we said that Isra'il is a trustworthy man from the men of the two Shaykhs, so his narration is authentic. Now we want to turn to Shurayk's narration, which is like Isra'il's narration, so we consider Shurayk's narration a support for Isra'il's narration. Does this support from Shurayk give Isra'il's narration strength or weakness?
The questioner : It gives it strength.
The Shaykh : That is it. So now, say what you want: Shurayk's narration was strengthened by Isra'il's narration, or do not say that Isra'il's narration was strengthened by Shurayk's narration, but say that it increased in strength. Clear?
The questioner : Clear. We return to the original question, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : And it is that I say: If we assume that Isra'il's narration does not exist, yes, then if such a thing passes us, do we say that this is a case of abbreviation of the story?
The Shaykh : Meaning you returned to where we started, and the answer to this has already been given.
The questioner : I understood from you that it is no.
The Shaykh : It is so.
The questioner : Yes, well done.