Were there any hadiths of the mudallis (those who conceal defects in chains) in "al-Sahihayn" (the two authentic collections) that were understood to be based on direct hearing, as in Muslim's collection from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, or not?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The second question: Were there any hadiths of the mudallis in "al-Sahihayn" that were understood to be based on direct hearing, as in Muslim's collection from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, or not? And is the mudallis, without exception, not authentic if he does not explicitly state that he heard it?
The Shaykh : We spoke about this yesterday, roughly in the hotel, regarding the mudallis according to the view of the researcher or critic. If he is one of those whose tadlis (concealment of defects) is rare according to that researcher, or if his hadith is smoothed out and made to flow, then it is accepted; otherwise, the reliance on it is suspended until it becomes clear to him that he explicitly stated he heard it, or at least he finds a corroborating narration or another path that strengthens it. We spoke yesterday that looking at the rank of this mudallis varies. If one looks at his rank and finds him to be in the first or second category in the classification of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, that means his use of "an" (indicating a missing link) is accepted because his tadlis is little. As for the one who...
The questioner : ...and al-Hasan al-Basri?
The Shaykh : Al-Hasan al-Basri was mentioned recently. Now the example given is regarding Abu al-Zubayr. Abu al-Zubayr is, as I recall, mentioned by the same Hafiz in the third category, where scholars hesitate in accepting his hadith or smoothing out his tadlis. The narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, specifically, the critics and Hafizs have stopped short of accepting his use of "an" because it is established that he narrates much from Jabir using "an." Therefore, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi says, as I mentioned in some of my annotations, that there is something in the heart regarding what Muslim extracted through the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and that is only because of his tadlis. Recently, I came across the book "al-Wahm wa al-Ihama" by Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Qattan al-Magribi, in which he critiques some of the errors of al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in the aforementioned book. Ibn al-Qattan follows up on 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, who is a Hafiz, researcher, and critic, in many of the hadiths he mentioned...
Let us return to say that al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili (may Allah have mercy on him), in his book "al-Ahkam," and this book is divided into three books: the first is "al-Ahkam al-Kubra" (The Major Rulings), the second is "al-Ahkam al-Wushta" (The Middle Rulings), and the last is "al-Ahkam al-Sughra" (The Minor Rulings). May Allah honor you. In "al-Ahkam al-Kubra," his style is to present the hadiths with the chains of their extractors. He says, for example, "Al-Bukhari narrated to us so-and-so from so-and-so with the chain that is in 'Sahih al-Bukhari'; Muslim narrated to me so-and-so from so-and-so with the chain that is in his 'Sahih,'" and so on for all the other books, Abu Dawud and al-Bazzar's "Musnad al-Bazzar," and so forth. This is in "al-Ahkam al-Kubra," and there he discusses the chain if it needs clarification of its authenticity or weakness. The second book, "al-Ahkam al-Wushta," does not present the chains of the extractors for the hadiths, but rather says: "Al-Bukhari narrated it," "Muslim narrated it," "Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim," "Abu Dawud narrated it," and so on. But here, when he says, for example, "Abu Dawud narrated it," he adds "with an authentic chain," "with a good chain," "with a chain containing so-and-so who is weak," or similar phrases that clarify the weakness of the chain. This is the case in the second book called "al-Ahkam al-Wushta."
As for "al-Ahkam al-Sughra," he selected it from both the Major and Middle books. He presents the hadiths on the basis that everything mentioned in this book is authentic and established for him. This is in "al-Ahkam al-Sughra."
Now, returning to Ibn al-Qattan, he criticizes al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in some of the hadiths he attributed to Muslim, which are from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and other hadiths he attributed to al-Tirmidhi and others from this path as well. Ibn al-Qattan clarifies that 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili sometimes defects a hadith that is from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir because he used "an" (indicating a missing link), and considers that a defect. Sometimes he remains silent, especially if he attributed it to himself. Now Ibn al-Qattan says: My silence regarding this hadith, which is from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, misleads the reader of his book into thinking that this chain or this hadith is free from defect, and that is not the case. Because al-Isbili himself defects some of the narrations that came through the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. Ibn al-Qattan says: It was therefore obligatory for al-Isbili to clarify all the hadiths that are from the path of Abu al-Zubayr, and not to defect some in this narration and remain silent about others, because the reader assumes it is free from defect.
The point is that the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir is defective. I had previously, when I extracted "Mukhtasar Muslim" by al-Mundhiri, in my annotations, pointed to some of the hadiths in "Sahih Muslim" from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and mentioned there that this narration is defective due to the use of "an." This is unlike when the hadith is from the narration of al-Layth ibn Sa'd from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. Now, and praise be to Allah, this "Mukhtasar Muslim" is being prepared with a new edition and new investigations. Among them is that I followed up on what was feasible for me of the narrations of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir that contain "an," and I followed them in other sources and found explicit statements of hearing for some of them, so I noted that. I found for the hadith that Abu al-Zubayr narrated with "an" from Jabir a corroborating narration or one that strengthens it. Therefore, the hadiths of Abu al-Zubayr are, in reality, of the rank where one should suspend reliance on them for the reasons mentioned earlier.
I had written a response to this Egyptian named Mahmud Sa'id Mamdouh. I wrote a response to him in some of the introductions. I remember one of them now, the introduction to... and what else, I think after "al-Silsilah al-Sahihah" or "al-Da'ifah"? I no longer remember now... Well, that is what I have regarding that question.
The questioner : As for... the hadiths of the mudallis from the first and second categories, these are without...
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : As for the third category of Abu al-Zubayr, this requires direct hearing. Direct hearing or a corroborating narration is necessary...
The Shaykh : Or with corroborating narrations, yes.
The questioner : Yes, yes. The third question.
The Shaykh : But do not forget my annotation yesterday, meaning that these categories are according to the ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of Ibn Hajar. My opinion, or rather the opinion of others, may differ in this classification. One may place someone in the second category into the third category, and so on.
The questioner : But are you in agreement with this classification now?
The Shaykh : No, regarding al-Hasan al-Basri, I have him like Abu al-Zubayr. Yes, yes.
The questioner : And what is the reason, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : The reason?
The questioner : What specifically made you, regarding al-Hasan al-Basri, lower him to the second rank.
The Shaykh : Because of the abundance of his tadlis.
The questioner : Because of the abundance of his tadlis.
The questioner : Well, regarding... absolutely, if he does not explicitly state direct hearing, it is not acceptable for the third category.
The Shaykh : But this is for the third category and those below it.
The questioner : Did you conduct an investigation, O Shaykh, of the narration of al-Hasan al-Basri?
The Shaykh : The investigation was within the limits of chance, not intentionally, otherwise there is no way to it.
The Shaykh : We spoke about this yesterday, roughly in the hotel, regarding the mudallis according to the view of the researcher or critic. If he is one of those whose tadlis (concealment of defects) is rare according to that researcher, or if his hadith is smoothed out and made to flow, then it is accepted; otherwise, the reliance on it is suspended until it becomes clear to him that he explicitly stated he heard it, or at least he finds a corroborating narration or another path that strengthens it. We spoke yesterday that looking at the rank of this mudallis varies. If one looks at his rank and finds him to be in the first or second category in the classification of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, that means his use of "an" (indicating a missing link) is accepted because his tadlis is little. As for the one who...
The questioner : ...and al-Hasan al-Basri?
The Shaykh : Al-Hasan al-Basri was mentioned recently. Now the example given is regarding Abu al-Zubayr. Abu al-Zubayr is, as I recall, mentioned by the same Hafiz in the third category, where scholars hesitate in accepting his hadith or smoothing out his tadlis. The narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, specifically, the critics and Hafizs have stopped short of accepting his use of "an" because it is established that he narrates much from Jabir using "an." Therefore, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi says, as I mentioned in some of my annotations, that there is something in the heart regarding what Muslim extracted through the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and that is only because of his tadlis. Recently, I came across the book "al-Wahm wa al-Ihama" by Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Qattan al-Magribi, in which he critiques some of the errors of al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in the aforementioned book. Ibn al-Qattan follows up on 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, who is a Hafiz, researcher, and critic, in many of the hadiths he mentioned...
Let us return to say that al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili (may Allah have mercy on him), in his book "al-Ahkam," and this book is divided into three books: the first is "al-Ahkam al-Kubra" (The Major Rulings), the second is "al-Ahkam al-Wushta" (The Middle Rulings), and the last is "al-Ahkam al-Sughra" (The Minor Rulings). May Allah honor you. In "al-Ahkam al-Kubra," his style is to present the hadiths with the chains of their extractors. He says, for example, "Al-Bukhari narrated to us so-and-so from so-and-so with the chain that is in 'Sahih al-Bukhari'; Muslim narrated to me so-and-so from so-and-so with the chain that is in his 'Sahih,'" and so on for all the other books, Abu Dawud and al-Bazzar's "Musnad al-Bazzar," and so forth. This is in "al-Ahkam al-Kubra," and there he discusses the chain if it needs clarification of its authenticity or weakness. The second book, "al-Ahkam al-Wushta," does not present the chains of the extractors for the hadiths, but rather says: "Al-Bukhari narrated it," "Muslim narrated it," "Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim," "Abu Dawud narrated it," and so on. But here, when he says, for example, "Abu Dawud narrated it," he adds "with an authentic chain," "with a good chain," "with a chain containing so-and-so who is weak," or similar phrases that clarify the weakness of the chain. This is the case in the second book called "al-Ahkam al-Wushta."
As for "al-Ahkam al-Sughra," he selected it from both the Major and Middle books. He presents the hadiths on the basis that everything mentioned in this book is authentic and established for him. This is in "al-Ahkam al-Sughra."
Now, returning to Ibn al-Qattan, he criticizes al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in some of the hadiths he attributed to Muslim, which are from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and other hadiths he attributed to al-Tirmidhi and others from this path as well. Ibn al-Qattan clarifies that 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili sometimes defects a hadith that is from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir because he used "an" (indicating a missing link), and considers that a defect. Sometimes he remains silent, especially if he attributed it to himself. Now Ibn al-Qattan says: My silence regarding this hadith, which is from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, misleads the reader of his book into thinking that this chain or this hadith is free from defect, and that is not the case. Because al-Isbili himself defects some of the narrations that came through the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. Ibn al-Qattan says: It was therefore obligatory for al-Isbili to clarify all the hadiths that are from the path of Abu al-Zubayr, and not to defect some in this narration and remain silent about others, because the reader assumes it is free from defect.
The point is that the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir is defective. I had previously, when I extracted "Mukhtasar Muslim" by al-Mundhiri, in my annotations, pointed to some of the hadiths in "Sahih Muslim" from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and mentioned there that this narration is defective due to the use of "an." This is unlike when the hadith is from the narration of al-Layth ibn Sa'd from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir. Now, and praise be to Allah, this "Mukhtasar Muslim" is being prepared with a new edition and new investigations. Among them is that I followed up on what was feasible for me of the narrations of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir that contain "an," and I followed them in other sources and found explicit statements of hearing for some of them, so I noted that. I found for the hadith that Abu al-Zubayr narrated with "an" from Jabir a corroborating narration or one that strengthens it. Therefore, the hadiths of Abu al-Zubayr are, in reality, of the rank where one should suspend reliance on them for the reasons mentioned earlier.
I had written a response to this Egyptian named Mahmud Sa'id Mamdouh. I wrote a response to him in some of the introductions. I remember one of them now, the introduction to... and what else, I think after "al-Silsilah al-Sahihah" or "al-Da'ifah"? I no longer remember now... Well, that is what I have regarding that question.
The questioner : As for... the hadiths of the mudallis from the first and second categories, these are without...
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : As for the third category of Abu al-Zubayr, this requires direct hearing. Direct hearing or a corroborating narration is necessary...
The Shaykh : Or with corroborating narrations, yes.
The questioner : Yes, yes. The third question.
The Shaykh : But do not forget my annotation yesterday, meaning that these categories are according to the ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of Ibn Hajar. My opinion, or rather the opinion of others, may differ in this classification. One may place someone in the second category into the third category, and so on.
The questioner : But are you in agreement with this classification now?
The Shaykh : No, regarding al-Hasan al-Basri, I have him like Abu al-Zubayr. Yes, yes.
The questioner : And what is the reason, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : The reason?
The questioner : What specifically made you, regarding al-Hasan al-Basri, lower him to the second rank.
The Shaykh : Because of the abundance of his tadlis.
The questioner : Because of the abundance of his tadlis.
The questioner : Well, regarding... absolutely, if he does not explicitly state direct hearing, it is not acceptable for the third category.
The Shaykh : But this is for the third category and those below it.
The questioner : Did you conduct an investigation, O Shaykh, of the narration of al-Hasan al-Basri?
The Shaykh : The investigation was within the limits of chance, not intentionally, otherwise there is no way to it.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.