Is there a contradiction in your rule of not accepting a mursal (report missing the Companion link) hadith for the purpose of supporting (injbar) if the chain to the mursal narrator is not authentic? Here, two defects may have gathered in the hadith.

The questioner : I know from your rule that a mursal (report missing the Companion link) hadith is not accepted for the purpose of supporting (injbar) if the chain to the mursal narrator is not authentic. Here, two defects may have gathered in the hadith: the mursal status and the weakness of one of the narrators, or a break in the chain below the mursal narrator. Does this not constitute some kind of contradiction with what I mentioned earlier?

The Shaykh : Lam

The questioner : Because two or more defects have gathered in it, what is suitable for supporting (injbar) means that it is very weak.

The Shaykh : It is not suitable for supporting (injbar), even if it comes from another connected (musnad) path.

The questioner : If this hadith comes connected (musnad) from another weak path, the hadith remains weak; it is not supported by this mursal (report missing the Companion link) path whose chain to the mursal narrator is not authentic.

The Shaykh : Why am I saying this?

The questioner : You are saying this, yes.

The Shaykh : And

The questioner : In your response to Maududi.

The Shaykh : In which hadith?

The questioner : Regarding the hadith of Asma'.

The Shaykh : Ah?

The questioner : In the hadith of Asma'.

The Shaykh : The hadith of Asma'.

The questioner : Yes

The Shaykh : I am refuting the hadith of Asma'.

The questioner : You, in your response to Maududi.

The Shaykh : I am asking you: I am refuting the hadith of Asma' in this absolute manner.

The questioner : You refuted it.

The Shaykh : And I do not refute any narration from it.

The questioner : You refute a narration from it.

The Shaykh : And they are

The questioner : The one that exceeds the two hands.

The Shaykh : It is hasan (a good hadith) and it is connected (musnad).

The questioner : No, I do not want to discuss this, O Shaykh, but I am discussing a specific detail.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. But when you want to attribute to a person something he does not believe, the example must first be present and must match the claim.

The questioner : The example, O Shaykh, is present and established in the books of terminology, such as in Tadrīb al-Rāwī and others. I say, O Shaykh, in Tadrīb al-Rāwī and others, they stipulated and said that the chain must be authentic.

The Shaykh : You are now speaking about me, may Allah bless you.

The questioner : And I am speaking about you, and you quoted this, and in your response to Maududi, you refuted him on this point.

The Shaykh : This is a deviation, you are saying.

The questioner : What is the deviation?

The Shaykh : Allow me, may Allah bless you. When I say this is a deviation, you oppose me and say, "No, it is not a deviation." There is no benefit in this talk. But if you allow me, when you hear from me something you see as wrong, you do not say, "No, it is not a deviation," but you establish my statement as wrong. So I am now asking you: the addition that you refuted in Maududi came connected (musnad) from one path and mursal (report missing the Companion link) with two defects: the mursal status and weakness. So the answer: do you say yes or no?

The questioner : Yes

The Shaykh : Okay, what is the connected (musnad) one in this addition?

The questioner : In this addition.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : This addition.

The Shaykh : No, I am not asking about the addition; what is the connected (musnad) one?

The questioner : No, I did not mention that it is connected (musnad); rather, Maududi cited the hadith of Qatadah.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, this is mursal (report missing the Companion link) and it has no connected (musnad) corroborating narration (shahid).

The questioner : He brought a corroborating narration (shahid), but you refuted him regarding his corroborating narration (shahid).

The Shaykh : Is the corroborating narration (shahid) connected (musnad) or mursal (report missing the Companion link)?

The questioner : Mursal (report missing the Companion link), but from another path; he saw it.

The Shaykh : You have contradicted what you claimed, may Allah bless you.

The questioner : Yes

The Shaykh : You have contradicted what you claimed and what you attributed to me.

The questioner : It seems I misunderstood what you intended.

The Shaykh : Allow me.

The questioner : Yes

The Shaykh : You said, "And I hope I am mistaken," so you say, "I was mistaken." You said that I, from my methodology, strengthen a mursal (report missing the Companion link) hadith that has two defects: the mursal status and weakness.

The questioner : No, the opposite, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Be patient with me. It came connected (musnad) from another path, so I strengthen the mursal (report missing the Companion link) with the connected (musnad) one, even though the mursal (report missing the Companion link) has two defects.

The questioner : No, I said the opposite, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The opposite; the result is the same. What is the opposite? The connected (musnad) one has two defects.

The questioner : I said that you...

The Shaykh : The connected (musnad) one has two defects.

The questioner : The connected (musnad) one has one defect or more; we have no business with it. Perhaps, O Shaykh, you did not understand the crux of my question.

The Shaykh : I understand that you say: a mursal (report missing the Companion link) is strengthened by a connected (musnad) authentic hadith. Is this what you say or not?

The questioner : No, that is not what I intended.

The Shaykh : Then what did you intend?

The questioner : I intended a specific rule, which is that if we want to support a weak connected (musnad) hadith with a mursal (report missing the Companion link) hadith, the chain to the mursal narrator must be authentic; otherwise, it is not valid to support that weak hadith.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, Professor Sa'd. This is what I repeat to your ears: your statement summarizes that you say about me that if a mursal (report missing the Companion link) hadith comes with two defects: the mursal status and weakness...

The questioner : No, O Shaykh, the chain to the mursal narrator is authentic; it has no defect except the mursal status only.

The Shaykh : Okay, and the weakness that has two defects, what is it in?

The questioner : This is another topic. This is a hadith that came to us connected (musnad) but weak; weak only.

The Shaykh : Very well.

The questioner : And we want to support it with a mursal (report missing the Companion link) hadith. You stipulate for this mursal (report missing the Companion link) that the chain to the mursal narrator must be authentic; otherwise, it is not suitable to support that weak hadith.

The Shaykh : And I am asking, may Allah bless you: so the mursal (report missing the Companion link) whose chain to the mursal narrator is authentic, is this an authentic mursal (report missing the Companion link) or not?

The questioner : An authentic mursal (report missing the Companion link).

The Shaykh : Okay, a weak connected (musnad) corroborating narration (shahid) comes for it; does it strengthen the mursal (report missing the Companion link) or not?

The questioner : Here, it strengthens it.

The Shaykh : Okay, so what is it that does not strengthen it?

The questioner : If the mursal (report missing the Companion link) hadith's chain to the mursal narrator is not authentic.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is it; it has two defects.

The questioner : So it has two defects.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. It has been an hour since I have been repeating to your ears: it has two defects; it has the mursal status and weakness from below.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : Okay, may Allah forgive you.

The questioner : So you do not strengthen it.

The Shaykh : How do I not strengthen it? I am demanding it from you. Where is the example you say I do not strengthen? You mentioned Maududi's hadith, O Shaykh Sa'd. The important thing is not the book, but the idea.

The questioner : The idea. Yes, I do not want to discuss the topic.

The Shaykh : Allow me, therefore... it is not mentioned in the book.

The questioner : Because I feel... it is not in this place.

The Shaykh : Allow me, do not rush me. I am telling you: if there is a hadith in the book with two defects—the mursal status and weakness—and it comes with a weak connected (musnad) chain, then I am not as you thought. But if a mursal (report missing the Companion link) addition comes, I do not strengthen it. The addition that you mention and that I weakened in the response to Maududi—he also weakened it—is there a connected (musnad) and a mursal (report missing the Companion link)? It is mursal (report missing the Companion link) from one side and weak from below from another side. Now, do you say yes or no? If you say yes, you have strengthened a mursal (report missing the Companion link) with a connected (musnad) one, and I accept that. But if you weakened a mursal (report missing the Companion link) with a mursal (report missing the Companion link), I accept that. But you say it is my habit to weaken what is a mursal (report missing the Companion link) addition, weak, and has a connected (musnad) corroborating narration (shahid). The corroborating narration (shahid) is the response to Maududi. That addition is not in Maududi's book; it came connected (musnad) with a weak chain and mursal (report missing the Companion link) with an authentic mursal (report missing the Companion link) chain, not weak. This is what is in the answer. If you doubt this, you can refer to the letter.

The questioner : My intention, may Allah protect you, is not the type of the book or the content of this book, but the intended rule from which we wanted to benefit.

The Shaykh : And I have answered you about this and said to you: May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : I remember, may Allah protect you, a topic that passed by me in the book of Janā'iz (Funerals). I remember even the narrator by whom I weakened the hadith, which is Ash'ath ibn Sawwar. I think he narrates it from al-Hasan al-Basri. It seems you mentioned the statement of one of the scholars that it has another path, then you criticized it and said, "Yes, this would be valid if the chain to al-Hasan al-Basri were authentic, but if it is not authentic, it is not suitable for supporting (injbar) because it is mursal (report missing the Companion link)." And you mentioned the rule.

The Shaykh : What is the point?

The questioner : The point is the rule that we are discussing now.

The Shaykh : Okay, you are interested in the rule.

The questioner : The rule only.

The Shaykh : Or some branches that deviated from the rule, or agreed with the rule.