Does the establishment of meeting imply the establishment of hearing? And what is your comment on Ibn Rajab's opinion where he adopted al-Bukhari's condition?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : My Shaykh, regarding the issue of meeting and hearing, O Shaykh, does it mean, is it required that the establishment of hearing follows from the meeting, or is it not required, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Does the establishment of meeting imply the establishment of hearing, or is it the other way around?
The questioner : The question
The Shaykh : Your question.
The questioner : No, does the establishment of meeting imply the establishment of hearing? Yes.
The Shaykh : Here, you repeated your phrase just now.
The questioner : Yes, to confirm it, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : The establishment of hearing is not required, but the establishment of meeting is sufficient to prove hearing in any hadith narrated by one who met his Shaykh and knew of that meeting, unless it is established that he is a concealor of defects (mudallis), in which case it is not established. My answer is clear. Good.
The questioner : Good, O Shaykh, now Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him) means he opposed this issue and followed the methodology of the early scholars like al-Bukhari and 'Ali ibn al-Madini.
The Shaykh : He did not oppose this.
The questioner : He met him, O Shaykh, he mentioned this in the book.
The Shaykh : No, he did not oppose. You are mistaken now.
The questioner : Good, I read it, O Shaykh, and found that he opposed.
The Shaykh : O Shaykh, I am telling you that Ibn Rajab agreed with al-Bukhari. Al-Bukhari did not say that the establishment of meeting does not imply the establishment of hearing; rather, he required that for one who narrated from his Shaykh in a form that does not explicitly state hearing, it must be established that he met this Shaykh. This is what al-Bukhari said, and this is what Ibn Rajab said or chose.
Whereas you are now asking: Does the establishment of meeting imply the establishment of hearing? Meaning, if a man narrated from his Shaykh and it is established that he met him, is it required that he heard this hadith from this Shaykh? Did he hear this hadith? We told you: it is not required, but it serves as proof. I am now returning to the opinion of the majority and the opinion of Imam Muslim, contrary to al-Bukhari. It is not necessary that the meeting be established, as long as this narrator who narrated from his Shaykh in a form that does not establish the meeting is not a concealor of defects (mudallis) and is a contemporary of him. Ibn Rajab chose al-Bukhari's school. So what do you want to show me?
If a narrator narrated from a Shaykh who was his contemporary, and it was not established that he met him, it is considered a broken chain, and the majority are satisfied with contemporaneity. Do you understand it differently than this, or do you understand it this way?
The questioner : I understand it differently than this.
The Shaykh : And He
The questioner : That it must be established that the narrator narrated this hadith; every hadith must be established, meaning.
The Shaykh : Even if he is not a concealor of defects (mudallis).
The questioner : The answer: state what you understand. If it is wrong, he will correct it for you. State what you understand, what is in your mind now.
The Shaykh : Even if he is not a concealor of defects (mudallis).
The questioner : The majority: No, if he is a concealor of defects (mudallis), it is required. If he is not a concealor of defects (mudallis), yes.
The Shaykh : If he is not a concealor of defects (mudallis).
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : And I am saying.
The questioner : But for example.
The student: Peace be upon you.
Another student: And upon you be peace.
The Shaykh : The same speech, chapters one, two, three. Do you not say that al-Bukhari requires the establishment of meeting between the narrator and the one narrated from?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : And I say yes, that is correct.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Good, and that Imam Muslim is satisfied with contemporaneity.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : And that al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab is with al-Bukhari.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : And I say yes. Good, what remains? The last question is:
Does al-Bukhari require that if a narrator narrates from one whose meeting with him is established, and he narrates a hadith from him without using the "an" (from) particle, without explicitly stating the narration, that this narration is not accepted?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Good, this is what I am telling you, I have been saying it since.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good
The Shaykh : Raise your voice.
The Shaykh : Does the establishment of meeting imply the establishment of hearing, or is it the other way around?
The questioner : The question
The Shaykh : Your question.
The questioner : No, does the establishment of meeting imply the establishment of hearing? Yes.
The Shaykh : Here, you repeated your phrase just now.
The questioner : Yes, to confirm it, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : The establishment of hearing is not required, but the establishment of meeting is sufficient to prove hearing in any hadith narrated by one who met his Shaykh and knew of that meeting, unless it is established that he is a concealor of defects (mudallis), in which case it is not established. My answer is clear. Good.
The questioner : Good, O Shaykh, now Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him) means he opposed this issue and followed the methodology of the early scholars like al-Bukhari and 'Ali ibn al-Madini.
The Shaykh : He did not oppose this.
The questioner : He met him, O Shaykh, he mentioned this in the book.
The Shaykh : No, he did not oppose. You are mistaken now.
The questioner : Good, I read it, O Shaykh, and found that he opposed.
The Shaykh : O Shaykh, I am telling you that Ibn Rajab agreed with al-Bukhari. Al-Bukhari did not say that the establishment of meeting does not imply the establishment of hearing; rather, he required that for one who narrated from his Shaykh in a form that does not explicitly state hearing, it must be established that he met this Shaykh. This is what al-Bukhari said, and this is what Ibn Rajab said or chose.
Whereas you are now asking: Does the establishment of meeting imply the establishment of hearing? Meaning, if a man narrated from his Shaykh and it is established that he met him, is it required that he heard this hadith from this Shaykh? Did he hear this hadith? We told you: it is not required, but it serves as proof. I am now returning to the opinion of the majority and the opinion of Imam Muslim, contrary to al-Bukhari. It is not necessary that the meeting be established, as long as this narrator who narrated from his Shaykh in a form that does not establish the meeting is not a concealor of defects (mudallis) and is a contemporary of him. Ibn Rajab chose al-Bukhari's school. So what do you want to show me?
If a narrator narrated from a Shaykh who was his contemporary, and it was not established that he met him, it is considered a broken chain, and the majority are satisfied with contemporaneity. Do you understand it differently than this, or do you understand it this way?
The questioner : I understand it differently than this.
The Shaykh : And He
The questioner : That it must be established that the narrator narrated this hadith; every hadith must be established, meaning.
The Shaykh : Even if he is not a concealor of defects (mudallis).
The questioner : The answer: state what you understand. If it is wrong, he will correct it for you. State what you understand, what is in your mind now.
The Shaykh : Even if he is not a concealor of defects (mudallis).
The questioner : The majority: No, if he is a concealor of defects (mudallis), it is required. If he is not a concealor of defects (mudallis), yes.
The Shaykh : If he is not a concealor of defects (mudallis).
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : And I am saying.
The questioner : But for example.
The student: Peace be upon you.
Another student: And upon you be peace.
The Shaykh : The same speech, chapters one, two, three. Do you not say that al-Bukhari requires the establishment of meeting between the narrator and the one narrated from?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : And I say yes, that is correct.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Good, and that Imam Muslim is satisfied with contemporaneity.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : And that al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab is with al-Bukhari.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : And I say yes. Good, what remains? The last question is:
Does al-Bukhari require that if a narrator narrates from one whose meeting with him is established, and he narrates a hadith from him without using the "an" (from) particle, without explicitly stating the narration, that this narration is not accepted?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Good, this is what I am telling you, I have been saying it since.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good
The Shaykh : Raise your voice.