Is the narration of a narrator from a shaykh who engages in tadlis accepted if he narrates frequently from him?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: He mentionedThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi (may Allah have mercy on him) stated that if a narrator or student narrates frequently from a shaykh who engages in tadlis, his narration from his shaykh is accepted, even if he uses the formula of indeterminate attribution, as long as he narrates frequently from him; it is such and such. What is the correctness of this statement? What is the correctness of this statement...? Did Al-Mu'allimi (may Allah have mercy on him) mention it?
The Shaykh : First, what appears to me—and Allah knows best—is that this statement, in its absolute form, is not precise. Rather, it requires a necessary condition, as you will see, if Allah wills. This is determined by the question and answer: Does this narrator, who narrates frequently from his shaykh who engages in tadlis, know about his tadlis or is he unaware of it? If he is unaware of his tadlis, the statement is not sound. If he knows about his tadlis, then it is accepted. What is your opinion of this distinction?
The questioner : It remains that it appears that the one who narrates frequently fromThe Shaykh : knows him.
The Shaykh : You are not certain about the answer.
The questioner : I will answer, if Allah wills...
The Shaykh : The good of the present is its immediate part. Your question will be answered as the proverb says: A bird in the hand is better than ten in the tree. I may forget and you may forget like me, and you will not get an answer. The good of the present is its immediate part. What is your opinion of this distinction?
The questioner : It appears to be correct.
The Shaykh : And the statement you quoted; does it contain a distinction?
The questioner : It refers back to it.
The Shaykh : You did not answer me?
The questioner : It does not contain this distinction that you mentioned, but it refers back to it.
The Shaykh : Refers back to the doer, who did it, and I refer it back?
The questioner: BecauseThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi clarified.
The Shaykh : Answer—may Allah bless you.
The questioner : The sameThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi clarified and mentioned.
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : He said: "Due to his frequent companionship with him, he came to know his hadith from the hadith of others and from the hadith of his shaykhs. So if he narrates a hadith that is not from the hadith of his shaykhs, he recognizes it."
The Shaykh : This does not contain the distinction that I mentioned.
The questioner : The one who knows about his tadlis; you mentioned that he knows about his tadlis or not.
The Shaykh : Meaning, he is aware that his shaykh sometimes engages in tadlis, and sometimes he is explicit, or he does not know?
The questioner : He narrates frequently from him; therefore, he knows.
The Shaykh : No, no, there is no necessary connection. Meaning, you are taking this by way of deduction. We want an explicit text on the subject?
The questioner : I do not have an explicit text, but the one who accompanies the shaykh knows him.
The Shaykh : No, my brother, it is not a condition. You do not know, within the limits of what you have studied, that many scholars and memorizers of hadith do not describe the narrator and do not know about his tadlis? Or, in other words, perhaps the question is confusing for you: Do you believe that every narrator about whom a hadith scholar said that he engages in tadlis, every memorizer shares in this statement?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So then? So if this answer—and it is the correct one—regarding the memorizers from the scholars of the Sunnah; how do you speak of a narrator whom it is supposed that he knows, my brother, that he narrates frequently from him, but he may not know that he engages in tadlis? So it is necessary to qualify the phrase that I mentioned earlier, quoting fromThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi (may Allah have mercy on him), with the condition that he is aware of his shaykh's tadlis. Then, despite his frequent narration, he argues and narrates without specifying that this is from such and such, as al-Layth ibn Sa'd did, as we mentioned this before you came... whoever was present. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd noticed, and he was frequent in narrating from Abu al-Zubayr, so he said to him: "Is everything you narrate from Abu al-Zubayr something you heard from him?" He said: "No." This is a testimony from Abu al-Zubayr that condemns him for tadlis. The Hafiz, the Imam, the Imam of the people of Egypt in his time, whom some preferred over Imam Malik in Madinah, said: "Then teach me the hadiths that you heard from Abu al-Zubayr."
This is the Hafiz, and this is the distinguished student. Therefore, it is very necessary to qualify the phrase that you quoted fromThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi (may Allah have mercy on him).
The questioner : In the case where he knows about his tadlis.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The Shaykh : First, what appears to me—and Allah knows best—is that this statement, in its absolute form, is not precise. Rather, it requires a necessary condition, as you will see, if Allah wills. This is determined by the question and answer: Does this narrator, who narrates frequently from his shaykh who engages in tadlis, know about his tadlis or is he unaware of it? If he is unaware of his tadlis, the statement is not sound. If he knows about his tadlis, then it is accepted. What is your opinion of this distinction?
The questioner : It remains that it appears that the one who narrates frequently fromThe Shaykh : knows him.
The Shaykh : You are not certain about the answer.
The questioner : I will answer, if Allah wills...
The Shaykh : The good of the present is its immediate part. Your question will be answered as the proverb says: A bird in the hand is better than ten in the tree. I may forget and you may forget like me, and you will not get an answer. The good of the present is its immediate part. What is your opinion of this distinction?
The questioner : It appears to be correct.
The Shaykh : And the statement you quoted; does it contain a distinction?
The questioner : It refers back to it.
The Shaykh : You did not answer me?
The questioner : It does not contain this distinction that you mentioned, but it refers back to it.
The Shaykh : Refers back to the doer, who did it, and I refer it back?
The questioner: BecauseThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi clarified.
The Shaykh : Answer—may Allah bless you.
The questioner : The sameThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi clarified and mentioned.
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : He said: "Due to his frequent companionship with him, he came to know his hadith from the hadith of others and from the hadith of his shaykhs. So if he narrates a hadith that is not from the hadith of his shaykhs, he recognizes it."
The Shaykh : This does not contain the distinction that I mentioned.
The questioner : The one who knows about his tadlis; you mentioned that he knows about his tadlis or not.
The Shaykh : Meaning, he is aware that his shaykh sometimes engages in tadlis, and sometimes he is explicit, or he does not know?
The questioner : He narrates frequently from him; therefore, he knows.
The Shaykh : No, no, there is no necessary connection. Meaning, you are taking this by way of deduction. We want an explicit text on the subject?
The questioner : I do not have an explicit text, but the one who accompanies the shaykh knows him.
The Shaykh : No, my brother, it is not a condition. You do not know, within the limits of what you have studied, that many scholars and memorizers of hadith do not describe the narrator and do not know about his tadlis? Or, in other words, perhaps the question is confusing for you: Do you believe that every narrator about whom a hadith scholar said that he engages in tadlis, every memorizer shares in this statement?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So then? So if this answer—and it is the correct one—regarding the memorizers from the scholars of the Sunnah; how do you speak of a narrator whom it is supposed that he knows, my brother, that he narrates frequently from him, but he may not know that he engages in tadlis? So it is necessary to qualify the phrase that I mentioned earlier, quoting fromThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi (may Allah have mercy on him), with the condition that he is aware of his shaykh's tadlis. Then, despite his frequent narration, he argues and narrates without specifying that this is from such and such, as al-Layth ibn Sa'd did, as we mentioned this before you came... whoever was present. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd noticed, and he was frequent in narrating from Abu al-Zubayr, so he said to him: "Is everything you narrate from Abu al-Zubayr something you heard from him?" He said: "No." This is a testimony from Abu al-Zubayr that condemns him for tadlis. The Hafiz, the Imam, the Imam of the people of Egypt in his time, whom some preferred over Imam Malik in Madinah, said: "Then teach me the hadiths that you heard from Abu al-Zubayr."
This is the Hafiz, and this is the distinguished student. Therefore, it is very necessary to qualify the phrase that you quoted fromThe Shaykh : Al-Mu'allimi (may Allah have mercy on him).
The questioner : In the case where he knows about his tadlis.
The Shaykh: Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.