The meaning of "on the condition of the two Shaykhs": Is their condition contemporaneity and meeting, or is it the same men from whom they narrated from others?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He says: The meaning of "on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs" is that their condition is contemporaneity and meeting, or is it the same men from whom they narrated from others? This is one question.
The Shaykh : Of course, when a person says in the chain of narration of a hadith that it is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs; he means all the conditions that each of them stipulated in his "Sahih." There is no doubt that al-Bukhari's condition is more precise than Muslim's, whereas Muslim did not suffice with contemporaneity, but rather stipulated meeting. So we observe at that point that any chain of narration that is on al-Bukhari's condition in terms of the existence of a meeting between each narrator and his shaykh; this is considered not to contradict Muslim's condition; because it is contemporaneity plus more.
The questioner : Plus more?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. So when the chain of narration of a hadith is in this distance from this aspect, it is correct to say that the chain is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs, but not the reverse; that is: if a chain of narration did not stipulate connection between the narrator and his shaykh by the condition of meeting, but rather by the condition of contemporaneity, then at that time, whoever says about such a chain: "It is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs" merely because its men are from the men ofThe Shaykh : the two Shaykhs, is not precise in expression; because al-Bukhari's condition of meeting was not realized in one of the layers; so at that time, his saying: "On the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs" contains some leniency in expression; because al-Bukhari's condition of meeting was not realized in this second case. This is the answer.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
Another questioner : The second question: Do you want to... please.
The questioner : O Shaykh, Ibn Hajar - may Allah have mercy on him - in "Al-Nukat" stipulates in this point that the chain be in the form of refusal, he says: in the form of refusal, and he gives as an example "Hushaym" from "al-Zuhri," he says both are from the men of the Sahih, but..., but O Shaykh - meaning an example - : it appears that he means restricted contrary to the statement because... the form of listening, it may be understood from the statement.
The Shaykh : How is this last part?
The questioner : I say: The example is restricted, meaning in one who is spoken about inThe Shaykh : ...
The Shaykh : Understood, the example Hushaym from al-Zuhri is understood, but the speech I said I do not understand.
The questioner : That the Hafiz's speech says: in the form of listening; is it understood from this speech that it is stipulated that this narrator person has a narration in al-Bukhari from the mentioned shaykh himself until he says.
The Shaykh : On his condition.
The questioner : On the condition of al-Bukhari and Muslim.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is stipulated.
The questioner : I say: What if he is not spoken about in his shaykh?
The Shaykh : Even if he is, as long as he does not have a narration in the "Sahih" from thisThe Shaykh : specifically, yes, but there is precision here in that if it has been established for us that he met him, and he is safe from being spoken about regarding thisThe Shaykh : specifically, then that suffices at that time, whereas if he was spoken about like the example I mentioned earlier; then at that time it is not permissible to say that it is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs; that is: on the condition of al-Bukhari.
The questioner : Is it - O Shaykh - is it stipulated that the chain be in the same sequence?
The Shaykh : In the same sequence?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : What do you mean by sequence?
The questioner : I mean the succession, if we have a chain of narration.
The Shaykh : What we said is that for every narrator and his shaykh, it is stipulated regarding al-Bukhari's condition that a meeting between them be established, and contemporaneity is not sufficient.
The questioner : That is not what I mean, I mean is it stipulated thatThe Shaykh : one of them or both have narrated this chain in this sequence as the Hafiz says... in sequence.
The Shaykh : In sequence..., we are now discussing the sufficiency of contemporaneity or the necessity of meeting.
The questioner : The discussion is broader than this, and it is the conditionThe Shaykh : ...
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Okay; is it stipulated for us to say about a hadith from the hadiths that this hadith is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs that it be in the same sequence in which they narrated it?
The Shaykh : Perhaps you mean... your saying: in the same sequence, because it is clear - also - that what I mentioned earlier; meaning a chain of Zayd from 'Amr, both are from the narrators of al-Bukhari, but Zayd did not narrate from 'Amr in "Sahih al-Bukhari"; is that clear up to here?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; but Zayd narrated from Ahmad ibn Fulan, and he met him, so al-Bukhari's condition was realized from this aspect, but specifically that Zayd in al-Bukhari does not narrate except from 'Amr, this was not realized here, so you mean by sequence this form and not the other form; that is: Zayd from Ahmad.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Do you mean this?
The questioner : In every...
The Shaykh : I understood you, of course this is not stipulated, and this was answered earlier now; is that not so?
The Shaykh : Of course, when a person says in the chain of narration of a hadith that it is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs; he means all the conditions that each of them stipulated in his "Sahih." There is no doubt that al-Bukhari's condition is more precise than Muslim's, whereas Muslim did not suffice with contemporaneity, but rather stipulated meeting. So we observe at that point that any chain of narration that is on al-Bukhari's condition in terms of the existence of a meeting between each narrator and his shaykh; this is considered not to contradict Muslim's condition; because it is contemporaneity plus more.
The questioner : Plus more?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. So when the chain of narration of a hadith is in this distance from this aspect, it is correct to say that the chain is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs, but not the reverse; that is: if a chain of narration did not stipulate connection between the narrator and his shaykh by the condition of meeting, but rather by the condition of contemporaneity, then at that time, whoever says about such a chain: "It is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs" merely because its men are from the men ofThe Shaykh : the two Shaykhs, is not precise in expression; because al-Bukhari's condition of meeting was not realized in one of the layers; so at that time, his saying: "On the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs" contains some leniency in expression; because al-Bukhari's condition of meeting was not realized in this second case. This is the answer.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
Another questioner : The second question: Do you want to... please.
The questioner : O Shaykh, Ibn Hajar - may Allah have mercy on him - in "Al-Nukat" stipulates in this point that the chain be in the form of refusal, he says: in the form of refusal, and he gives as an example "Hushaym" from "al-Zuhri," he says both are from the men of the Sahih, but..., but O Shaykh - meaning an example - : it appears that he means restricted contrary to the statement because... the form of listening, it may be understood from the statement.
The Shaykh : How is this last part?
The questioner : I say: The example is restricted, meaning in one who is spoken about inThe Shaykh : ...
The Shaykh : Understood, the example Hushaym from al-Zuhri is understood, but the speech I said I do not understand.
The questioner : That the Hafiz's speech says: in the form of listening; is it understood from this speech that it is stipulated that this narrator person has a narration in al-Bukhari from the mentioned shaykh himself until he says.
The Shaykh : On his condition.
The questioner : On the condition of al-Bukhari and Muslim.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is stipulated.
The questioner : I say: What if he is not spoken about in his shaykh?
The Shaykh : Even if he is, as long as he does not have a narration in the "Sahih" from thisThe Shaykh : specifically, yes, but there is precision here in that if it has been established for us that he met him, and he is safe from being spoken about regarding thisThe Shaykh : specifically, then that suffices at that time, whereas if he was spoken about like the example I mentioned earlier; then at that time it is not permissible to say that it is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs; that is: on the condition of al-Bukhari.
The questioner : Is it - O Shaykh - is it stipulated that the chain be in the same sequence?
The Shaykh : In the same sequence?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : What do you mean by sequence?
The questioner : I mean the succession, if we have a chain of narration.
The Shaykh : What we said is that for every narrator and his shaykh, it is stipulated regarding al-Bukhari's condition that a meeting between them be established, and contemporaneity is not sufficient.
The questioner : That is not what I mean, I mean is it stipulated thatThe Shaykh : one of them or both have narrated this chain in this sequence as the Hafiz says... in sequence.
The Shaykh : In sequence..., we are now discussing the sufficiency of contemporaneity or the necessity of meeting.
The questioner : The discussion is broader than this, and it is the conditionThe Shaykh : ...
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Okay; is it stipulated for us to say about a hadith from the hadiths that this hadith is on the conditionThe Shaykh : of the two Shaykhs that it be in the same sequence in which they narrated it?
The Shaykh : Perhaps you mean... your saying: in the same sequence, because it is clear - also - that what I mentioned earlier; meaning a chain of Zayd from 'Amr, both are from the narrators of al-Bukhari, but Zayd did not narrate from 'Amr in "Sahih al-Bukhari"; is that clear up to here?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; but Zayd narrated from Ahmad ibn Fulan, and he met him, so al-Bukhari's condition was realized from this aspect, but specifically that Zayd in al-Bukhari does not narrate except from 'Amr, this was not realized here, so you mean by sequence this form and not the other form; that is: Zayd from Ahmad.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Do you mean this?
The questioner : In every...
The Shaykh : I understood you, of course this is not stipulated, and this was answered earlier now; is that not so?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.