If a trustworthy narrator reports from a *mudallis* using the formula: "I heard so-and-so narrate from so-and-so," is this considered an explicit statement of hearing or an *'an'anah*?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : If a narrator reports from a *mudallis*, and the formula is "I heard so-and-so narrate from so-and-so," is this considered an explicit statement of hearing or an *'an'anah*, as it appears in some books?
The Shaykh : I mean, are you just going around the word "narrate"?
The questioner : Narrate from someone else.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : The narrator said: "I heard so-and-so narrate from so-and-so," and the one being narrated from is a *mudallis*.
The Shaykh : I understood, my brother! I am saying this to clarify your question:
You are going around the word: "narrate," and instead of saying: yes, you go back and repeat your question. Is the problem for you, as I said first and last, and this is what made me say to you, or direct you to the fact that you are going around the word: "narrate," and not around the narrator's statement about the *mudallis*: "I heard him narrate"? Are you going around the two words: the narrator about the *mudallis* says: "I heard him narrate," or are you going around the word "narrate"?
The questioner : Narrate.
The Shaykh : Well, this is not an explicit statement of hearing and narration, because if the narrator says "about so-and-so," he has narrated from so-and-so, whether he explicitly stated the narration or not. The *mudallis* must then explicitly use a word that is clear regarding hearing: "He narrated to me," or "I heard him say," or something similar. However, if the narrator says: "I heard him," meaning: this *mudallis*, I heard this *mudallis* narrate from so-and-so, that does not mean he explicitly stated hearing.
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : If a narrator reports from a *mudallis*, and the formula is "I heard so-and-so narrate from so-and-so," is this considered an explicit statement of hearing or an *'an'anah*, as it appears in some books?
The Shaykh : I mean, are you just going around the word "narrate"?
The questioner : Narrate from someone else.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : The narrator said: "I heard so-and-so narrate from so-and-so," and the one being narrated from is a *mudallis*.
The Shaykh : I understood, my brother! I am saying this to clarify your question:
You are going around the word: "narrate," and instead of saying: yes, you go back and repeat your question. Is the problem for you, as I said first and last, and this is what made me say to you, or direct you to the fact that you are going around the word: "narrate," and not around the narrator's statement about the *mudallis*: "I heard him narrate"? Are you going around the two words: the narrator about the *mudallis* says: "I heard him narrate," or are you going around the word "narrate"?
The questioner : Narrate.
The Shaykh : Well, this is not an explicit statement of hearing and narration, because if the narrator says "about so-and-so," he has narrated from so-and-so, whether he explicitly stated the narration or not. The *mudallis* must then explicitly use a word that is clear regarding hearing: "He narrated to me," or "I heard him say," or something similar. However, if the narrator says: "I heard him," meaning: this *mudallis*, I heard this *mudallis* narrate from so-and-so, that does not mean he explicitly stated hearing.