When is the *'an'anah* of al-A'mash and Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki accepted?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding the defects you mentioned.
The Shaykh : Raise your voice.
The questioner : You mentioned defects that cast doubt on the hadith, namely that al-A'mash was a *mudallis* (one who conceals defects in chains).
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Very well, Shaykh, how are al-A'mash's narrations handled outside of "the two Sahihs"?
The Shaykh : The defect I recall right now is from a man who was a *mudallis*, namely Habib ibn Abi Thabit. I do not recall right now whether this chain also contains al-A'mash's *'an'anah*; are you certain of that?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, and is it a narration from al-A'mash from Habib?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Both of them were *mudallis*. Our answer to your second question is that al-A'mash's narration via *'an'anah*, if it appears in "the two Sahihs," is accepted based on the ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of the authors of "the two Sahihs" and trust in their knowledge, and their tracking of the hadith narration. However, if al-A'mash's narration appears outside "the two Sahihs," then his narration is subject to research, examination, acceptance, or rejection. This depends on studying the hadith that al-A'mash narrated via *'an'anah* in light of the supporting evidence surrounding this *'an'anah* to either refute this *'an'anah* or accept it. In that case, there is no consistent rule, as is the norm for the hadith of a *mudallis* who is known to have frequently engaged in *tadlis* (concealment of defects in chains). Regarding al-A'mash, we do not have a controlling rule that says his *'an'anah* is always accepted or always rejected. The example before us now is this hadith, as you heard earlier, which contradicts two other hadiths; one of them is agreed upon as authentic, and the other is unique to Imam al-Bukhari. Here, the researcher is compelled to stop at al-A'mash's *'an'anah* or Habib ibn Abi Thabit's, and say that perhaps the defect lies in one of the two *'an'anahs*; because the preserved hadith did not come with an explicit mention of the implied meaning, which is in both of the narrations mentioned earlier. In that case, we return to declaring the narration defective, where we find no apparent defect in it other than the *'an'anah*. This is a valid example of when it can be determined that al-A'mash's *'an'anah* is not accepted, especially if the hadith is one that isThe Shaykh : that the two who usually narrate via al-A'mash's *'an'anah*, it can be said—in this situation for some reason—that the authors of "the two Sahihs" turned away from this narration of al-A'mash from Habib because it contains *'an'anah* and a contradiction in the text. This is my answer to your second question.
Another questioner : Shaykh, a question.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
Another questioner : You mentioned that al-A'mash's *'an'anah* in "the two Sahihs" is carried as direct hearing, due to trustThe Shaykh : in the others, so I do not know regarding Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki's *'an'anah* in "Sahih Muslim" in the case of his *'an'anah* from Jabir; what is the difference between it and al-A'mash's *'an'anah*?
The Shaykh : The difference is clear when the detail came from Imam al-Layth ibn Sa'd al-Misri (may Allah have mercy on him), who asked Abu al-Zubayr to teach him the narrations he had heard directly from Jabir. By this, the narrations he had not heard from Jabir were distinguished for him. The difference here is that Jabir's narrations were divided, by al-Layth's precise question to him, into two sections: a section he heard from Jabir, and a section he did not hear from Jabir. So, whatever was from the first section, whether it came with explicit mention of the narration from a path other than al-Layth, or came via *'an'anah* from al-Layth's path, both are carried as connected. However, if it came from a narration other than al-Layth from Abu al-Zubayr via *'an'anah*, this remains from the second section, which Abu al-Zubayr did not explicitly state to Imam al-Layth that he had heard. So it is as if it were an explicit text, and in general terms, every hadith narrated by Abu al-Zubayr via *'an'anah* is not from the first section which he taught al-Layth that he had heard from Jabir.
Another questioner : Very well, Shaykh, regarding al-Layth's hadith from al-A'mash from Abu al-Zubayr, it was carried as connected; very well, sometimes the *tadlis* is removed via other narrations where it is explicitly stated as heard, even if they are from a path other than al-Layth; is it not possible that this applies, and that Imam Muslim may have looked at these, otherwise how?
The Shaykh : I did not understand your intent!
The questioner : I mean—may Allah bless you—now al-Layth narrated from Abu al-Zubayr what was heard by Abu al-Zubayr.
The Shaykh: Perfect.
The questioner : Very well, as is known, *tadlis* is sometimes removed by the arrival of another narration from Abu al-Zubayr, or from another *mudallis* who narrated it.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Is it not possible that Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) looked at these narrations and carried his narration as he presented it in Muslim as connected?
The Shaykh : This is possible, but it is not with certainty. In that case, this possibility is either confirmed or it falls away and disappears. However, when we research the depths of books, whether printed or manuscript, and we do not find in many of the narrations via *'an'anah* from al-Zubayr's narrations in "Sahih Muslim" that they are explicitly stated as narrations in other books, we cannot give preference to the assumption that Imam Muslim came across the explicit mention of the narration in another narration. This is said after research and examination. And we do not deny; rather, it may be correct for me to say that by the grace of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and His mercy, I find many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated via *'an'anah* from the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir for which I find an explicit mention of the narration outside of Muslim. We benefit from this and we rescue al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* from being a defect in the hadith; because Abu al-Zubayr explicitly mentioned the narration in another narration. I recently focused on the new edition, which is now in press—Allah willing—of my book "Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim" by al-Hafiz al-Mundhiri; I devoted special effort to tracking Abu al-Zubayr's narrations from Jabir that came via *'an'anah* in "Sahih Muslim"; I found some corroborating narrations for them, so I attached them to this abridgment in the new edition. When Abu al-Zubayr's narrations from Jabir are under this research, and then we do not find an explicit mention that rescues the hadith from being defective due to *'an'anah*, we have no choice but to attach these narrations via *'an'anah* in "Sahih Muslim" to the other section, which corresponds to the first section that Abu al-Zubayr taught al-Layth that he had heard from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him). This is my answer—also—to what preceded.
Other than that?
Another questioner : Regarding, Shaykh, "the two Sahihs" were criticized before this time.
The Shaykh : Correct.
Another questioner : But were they criticized, or one of them, regarding the *tadlis* of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir?
The Shaykh : And how not? Did you not see the statement of Imam al-Dhahabi in the biography of Abu al-Zubayr, where he says to him: "There are hadiths in 'Sahih Muslim' from his narration from Jabir via *'an'anah*, and there is something in the heart about them?!" This is first. And second, Ibn al-Qattan al-Farisi tracked Imam 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in his book "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra," where 'Abd al-Haqq actually sometimes made a praiseworthy effort in pointing out Abu al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* in some narrations that came in such as "Sunan al-Tirmidhi" and others. So the Imam critic, with knowledge, namely Ibn al-Qattan mentioned earlier, tracked the narrations via *'an'anah* in the book "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra," whether from the narration of Imam Muslim or from the narration of others, such as al-Tirmidhi for example, and he elaborated on them, holding Ibn al-Qattan accountable, holding Imam 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili accountable, how he pointed out Abu al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* in some narrations and declared the hadith defective due to it, while he did not do so in another narration, especially what was from these narrations via *'an'anah* in "Sahih Muslim." He says perhaps he was taken by the fact that the hadith is in "Sahih Muslim." Imam Ibn al-Qattan (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "And in that—meaning, perhaps he said—there is *tadlis* or misleading for the readers who find that 'Abd al-Haqq was silent about some hadiths in which Abu al-Zubayr used *'an'anah*, so these readers assume that these hadiths are from the section in which Abu al-Zubayr explicitly mentioned the narration, and the matter is not so. So I am not the one who uniquely declares Abu al-Zubayr's hadith from Jabir defective, but we have predecessors in that who are the best predecessors for us in criticizing these hadiths via *'an'anah*."
Do you have anything?
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And beware of that.
The Shaykh : Raise your voice.
The questioner : You mentioned defects that cast doubt on the hadith, namely that al-A'mash was a *mudallis* (one who conceals defects in chains).
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Very well, Shaykh, how are al-A'mash's narrations handled outside of "the two Sahihs"?
The Shaykh : The defect I recall right now is from a man who was a *mudallis*, namely Habib ibn Abi Thabit. I do not recall right now whether this chain also contains al-A'mash's *'an'anah*; are you certain of that?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, and is it a narration from al-A'mash from Habib?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Both of them were *mudallis*. Our answer to your second question is that al-A'mash's narration via *'an'anah*, if it appears in "the two Sahihs," is accepted based on the ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of the authors of "the two Sahihs" and trust in their knowledge, and their tracking of the hadith narration. However, if al-A'mash's narration appears outside "the two Sahihs," then his narration is subject to research, examination, acceptance, or rejection. This depends on studying the hadith that al-A'mash narrated via *'an'anah* in light of the supporting evidence surrounding this *'an'anah* to either refute this *'an'anah* or accept it. In that case, there is no consistent rule, as is the norm for the hadith of a *mudallis* who is known to have frequently engaged in *tadlis* (concealment of defects in chains). Regarding al-A'mash, we do not have a controlling rule that says his *'an'anah* is always accepted or always rejected. The example before us now is this hadith, as you heard earlier, which contradicts two other hadiths; one of them is agreed upon as authentic, and the other is unique to Imam al-Bukhari. Here, the researcher is compelled to stop at al-A'mash's *'an'anah* or Habib ibn Abi Thabit's, and say that perhaps the defect lies in one of the two *'an'anahs*; because the preserved hadith did not come with an explicit mention of the implied meaning, which is
The Most Merciful
الرحمنAnother questioner : Shaykh, a question.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
Another questioner : You mentioned that al-A'mash's *'an'anah* in "the two Sahihs" is carried as direct hearing, due to trustThe Shaykh : in the others, so I do not know regarding Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki's *'an'anah* in "Sahih Muslim" in the case of his *'an'anah* from Jabir; what is the difference between it and al-A'mash's *'an'anah*?
The Shaykh : The difference is clear when the detail came from Imam al-Layth ibn Sa'd al-Misri (may Allah have mercy on him), who asked Abu al-Zubayr to teach him the narrations he had heard directly from Jabir. By this, the narrations he had not heard from Jabir were distinguished for him. The difference here is that Jabir's narrations were divided, by al-Layth's precise question to him, into two sections: a section he heard from Jabir, and a section he did not hear from Jabir. So, whatever was from the first section, whether it came with explicit mention of the narration from a path other than al-Layth, or came via *'an'anah* from al-Layth's path, both are carried as connected. However, if it came from a narration other than al-Layth from Abu al-Zubayr via *'an'anah*, this remains from the second section, which Abu al-Zubayr did not explicitly state to Imam al-Layth that he had heard. So it is as if it were an explicit text, and in general terms, every hadith narrated by Abu al-Zubayr via *'an'anah* is not from the first section which he taught al-Layth that he had heard from Jabir.
Another questioner : Very well, Shaykh, regarding al-Layth's hadith from al-A'mash from Abu al-Zubayr, it was carried as connected; very well, sometimes the *tadlis* is removed via other narrations where it is explicitly stated as heard, even if they are from a path other than al-Layth; is it not possible that this applies, and that Imam Muslim may have looked at these, otherwise how?
The Shaykh : I did not understand your intent!
The questioner : I mean—may Allah bless you—now al-Layth narrated from Abu al-Zubayr what was heard by Abu al-Zubayr.
The Shaykh: Perfect.
The questioner : Very well, as is known, *tadlis* is sometimes removed by the arrival of another narration from Abu al-Zubayr, or from another *mudallis* who narrated it.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Is it not possible that Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) looked at these narrations and carried his narration as he presented it in Muslim as connected?
The Shaykh : This is possible, but it is not with certainty. In that case, this possibility is either confirmed or it falls away and disappears. However, when we research the depths of books, whether printed or manuscript, and we do not find in many of the narrations via *'an'anah* from al-Zubayr's narrations in "Sahih Muslim" that they are explicitly stated as narrations in other books, we cannot give preference to the assumption that Imam Muslim came across the explicit mention of the narration in another narration. This is said after research and examination. And we do not deny; rather, it may be correct for me to say that by the grace of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and His mercy, I find many of the hadiths that Muslim narrated via *'an'anah* from the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir for which I find an explicit mention of the narration outside of Muslim. We benefit from this and we rescue al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* from being a defect in the hadith; because Abu al-Zubayr explicitly mentioned the narration in another narration. I recently focused on the new edition, which is now in press—Allah willing—of my book "Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim" by al-Hafiz al-Mundhiri; I devoted special effort to tracking Abu al-Zubayr's narrations from Jabir that came via *'an'anah* in "Sahih Muslim"; I found some corroborating narrations for them, so I attached them to this abridgment in the new edition. When Abu al-Zubayr's narrations from Jabir are under this research, and then we do not find an explicit mention that rescues the hadith from being defective due to *'an'anah*, we have no choice but to attach these narrations via *'an'anah* in "Sahih Muslim" to the other section, which corresponds to the first section that Abu al-Zubayr taught al-Layth that he had heard from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him). This is my answer—also—to what preceded.
Other than that?
Another questioner : Regarding, Shaykh, "the two Sahihs" were criticized before this time.
The Shaykh : Correct.
Another questioner : But were they criticized, or one of them, regarding the *tadlis* of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir?
The Shaykh : And how not? Did you not see the statement of Imam al-Dhahabi in the biography of Abu al-Zubayr, where he says to him: "There are hadiths in 'Sahih Muslim' from his narration from Jabir via *'an'anah*, and there is something in the heart about them?!" This is first. And second, Ibn al-Qattan al-Farisi tracked Imam 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in his book "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra," where 'Abd al-Haqq actually sometimes made a praiseworthy effort in pointing out Abu al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* in some narrations that came in such as "Sunan al-Tirmidhi" and others. So the Imam critic, with knowledge, namely Ibn al-Qattan mentioned earlier, tracked the narrations via *'an'anah* in the book "Al-Ahkam al-Kubra," whether from the narration of Imam Muslim or from the narration of others, such as al-Tirmidhi for example, and he elaborated on them, holding Ibn al-Qattan accountable, holding Imam 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili accountable, how he pointed out Abu al-Zubayr's *'an'anah* in some narrations and declared the hadith defective due to it, while he did not do so in another narration, especially what was from these narrations via *'an'anah* in "Sahih Muslim." He says perhaps he was taken by the fact that the hadith is in "Sahih Muslim." Imam Ibn al-Qattan (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "And in that—meaning, perhaps he said—there is *tadlis* or misleading for the readers who find that 'Abd al-Haqq was silent about some hadiths in which Abu al-Zubayr used *'an'anah*, so these readers assume that these hadiths are from the section in which Abu al-Zubayr explicitly mentioned the narration, and the matter is not so. So I am not the one who uniquely declares Abu al-Zubayr's hadith from Jabir defective, but we have predecessors in that who are the best predecessors for us in criticizing these hadiths via *'an'anah*."
Do you have anything?
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And beware of that.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.