On the issue of the addition by trustworthy narrators; sometimes there is a weak route, and another narration comes, but you feel that it is an abridgment of the original narration.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... regarding the narration of hadith in the issue of the addition by trustworthy narrators. Sometimes the hadith is presented in the form of a narration by trustworthy narrators, but you feel that it is an abridgment of what came in the narration of the original of every... For example: the hadith of Shu'bah ibn Muslim from al-Muqdam ibn Shurayh, from his father Shurayh ibn Hani', that he asked A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), and in it A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to her: to the end. This hadith came from the route of Shurayh from al-Muqdam ibn Shurayh from his father... with a longer text; that he asked A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) about the "badawah"? He said: Did the Messenger (peace be upon him) do the "badawah"? She said: Yes, and that he intended the "badawah" once and sent to me a she-camel that was in a state of consecration, and it mentioned in it... or the wording that came to him or close to the wording.
The Shaykh : And it mentioned in it?
The questioner : In it, A'ishah... that gentleness is not placed in anything except that it adorns it, even though this came from Imam Ahmad from the route of Isra'il, but I am not asking you; I mean, regardless of this narration or the support of Isra'il for Shurayk, but if we assume that it does not exist, then Shurayk's narration alone; is it said that Shu'bah's narration in Muslim is of the type of abridgment? And what is the ruling on Shurayk's narration with its length, or what?
The Shaykh : Set aside Shu'bah's abridged narration for now, and you have only Shurayk's extended narration; what is the ruling on this narration?
The questioner : Regarding Isra'il's narration?
The Shaykh : I am saying now, one by one, we left it and held on to Shurayk's narration?
The questioner : Weak.
The Shaykh : It is weak, so if a trustworthy narrator comes and narrates the original of the story; does his narration of this original confirm the weak narrator's memorization or confirm his weakness?
The questioner : It confirms his memorization.
The Shaykh : Okay; that is the answer.
The questioner : It is said that it is of the type of abridgment.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Is it said that it is abridged?
The Shaykh : No, I may not have heard well, I understood or misunderstood, whatever it is, I do not know, I understood that you are saying an answer to my question that it confirms its weakness, did you say this?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So I repeat the question, and you hear the answer; if we set aside Shu'bah's abridged narration for now, and return to Shurayk's extended narration, let us assume this, we agree that this extended narration is weak; because Shurayk is known for weakness; so my question was: does not Shu'bah's abridged narration confirm the weakness of Shu'bah - excuse me, Shurayk - who added to the trustworthy one to confirm that Shurayk memorized while he is weak?
The questioner : No, I mean the first one.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : It is the weakness.
The Shaykh : This is what I understood from you, did you say otherwise?
The questioner : At the beginning I said otherwise.
The Shaykh : It does not matter, the important thing is that the original is weak, rather, if the researcher confirms the weakness of Shurayk in this extended narration; because the mountain in memorization - and he is Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaj - contradicted him and abridged the narration, now you can move to Isra'il's narration, if Isra'il's narration agrees with Shurayk's narration, it is a strong support, and we turn the matter around then; we assume that Shurayk's narration does not exist, and Isra'il's extended narration - also - exists; what is the ruling on his narration, weakness or validity?
The questioner : Weakness.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : I understood from your question that Isra'il also.
The Shaykh : I understood from you that Shurayk's narration is extended.
The questioner : And Isra'il's narration is extended.
The Shaykh : And Isra'il's narration is extended, this is what I understood, based on this statement I said: now we leave Shurayk's narration aside.
The questioner : And Isra'il.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : And Isra'il, we leave the narration... aside.
The Shaykh : We leave Shurayk's narration aside, and take Isra'il's narration; so what is the ruling on Isra'il's narration when looking at it alone; is it like Shurayk's weak narration or is it like Shurayk's valid narration in itself?
Another questioner : Shurayk's narration?
Another questioner : Shu'bah's narration.
The Shaykh : ... Isra'il's narration, is it weak like Shurayk's weak narration? Or is it valid like Shu'bah's narration?
The questioner : It is said that it is valid like Shu'bah's narration.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : And that the trustworthy one added here to Shu'bah.
The Shaykh : Now we return, the operation is subtraction and addition...; so if we say that Isra'il's narration is valid in itself, and we add to it what we left aside earlier, which is Shurayk's narration; does it confirm the weakness of Isra'il's narration or give it strength?
The questioner : Isra'il's narration gives strength.
The Shaykh : No, the question is the opposite.
The questioner : Yes, like this more... .
The Shaykh : It does not matter, but I want the answer to be according to the question, not to turn the question on me; because it may lead me to something he does not want.
The questioner : I have not known yet.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, I say: after we looked at Isra'il's complete narration, and studied it for its specificity; we said: that Isra'il is a trustworthy man from the menThe Shaykh : of the hadith; so his narration is valid, so now we want to turn to Shurayk's narration, and it is like Isra'il's narration, so we consider Shurayk's narration a support for Isra'il's narration, does this support from Shurayk give Isra'il's narration strength or weakness?
The questioner : It gives it strength.
The Shaykh : This is it, so now remain, say what you want, Shurayk's narration was strengthened by Isra'il's narration, or do not say Isra'il's narration was strengthened by Shurayk's narration, but say: it increased in strength; clear?
The questioner : Is that clear?
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : We return to the original question, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : And that is that I say: if you see that Isra'il's narration does not exist...; so do we say that this is of the type of abridgment of the story if it passes by us?
The Shaykh : Meaning you returned from where we started, and the answer to this has preceded.
The questioner : Yes, and I understood that it is no.
The Shaykh : That is correct.
The questioner: Yes.
O A'ishah, be gentle; for gentleness is not placed in anything except that it adorns it
يا عائشة ، ارفقي ؛ فإن الرِّفق ما وُضع فيه إلا زانهThe Shaykh : And it mentioned in it?
The questioner : In it, A'ishah... that gentleness is not placed in anything except that it adorns it, even though this came from Imam Ahmad from the route of Isra'il, but I am not asking you; I mean, regardless of this narration or the support of Isra'il for Shurayk, but if we assume that it does not exist, then Shurayk's narration alone; is it said that Shu'bah's narration in Muslim is of the type of abridgment? And what is the ruling on Shurayk's narration with its length, or what?
The Shaykh : Set aside Shu'bah's abridged narration for now, and you have only Shurayk's extended narration; what is the ruling on this narration?
The questioner : Regarding Isra'il's narration?
The Shaykh : I am saying now, one by one, we left it and held on to Shurayk's narration?
The questioner : Weak.
The Shaykh : It is weak, so if a trustworthy narrator comes and narrates the original of the story; does his narration of this original confirm the weak narrator's memorization or confirm his weakness?
The questioner : It confirms his memorization.
The Shaykh : Okay; that is the answer.
The questioner : It is said that it is of the type of abridgment.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Is it said that it is abridged?
The Shaykh : No, I may not have heard well, I understood or misunderstood, whatever it is, I do not know, I understood that you are saying an answer to my question that it confirms its weakness, did you say this?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So I repeat the question, and you hear the answer; if we set aside Shu'bah's abridged narration for now, and return to Shurayk's extended narration, let us assume this, we agree that this extended narration is weak; because Shurayk is known for weakness; so my question was: does not Shu'bah's abridged narration confirm the weakness of Shu'bah - excuse me, Shurayk - who added to the trustworthy one to confirm that Shurayk memorized while he is weak?
The questioner : No, I mean the first one.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : It is the weakness.
The Shaykh : This is what I understood from you, did you say otherwise?
The questioner : At the beginning I said otherwise.
The Shaykh : It does not matter, the important thing is that the original is weak, rather, if the researcher confirms the weakness of Shurayk in this extended narration; because the mountain in memorization - and he is Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaj - contradicted him and abridged the narration, now you can move to Isra'il's narration, if Isra'il's narration agrees with Shurayk's narration, it is a strong support, and we turn the matter around then; we assume that Shurayk's narration does not exist, and Isra'il's extended narration - also - exists; what is the ruling on his narration, weakness or validity?
The questioner : Weakness.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : I understood from your question that Isra'il also.
The Shaykh : I understood from you that Shurayk's narration is extended.
The questioner : And Isra'il's narration is extended.
The Shaykh : And Isra'il's narration is extended, this is what I understood, based on this statement I said: now we leave Shurayk's narration aside.
The questioner : And Isra'il.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : And Isra'il, we leave the narration... aside.
The Shaykh : We leave Shurayk's narration aside, and take Isra'il's narration; so what is the ruling on Isra'il's narration when looking at it alone; is it like Shurayk's weak narration or is it like Shurayk's valid narration in itself?
Another questioner : Shurayk's narration?
Another questioner : Shu'bah's narration.
The Shaykh : ... Isra'il's narration, is it weak like Shurayk's weak narration? Or is it valid like Shu'bah's narration?
The questioner : It is said that it is valid like Shu'bah's narration.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : And that the trustworthy one added here to Shu'bah.
The Shaykh : Now we return, the operation is subtraction and addition...; so if we say that Isra'il's narration is valid in itself, and we add to it what we left aside earlier, which is Shurayk's narration; does it confirm the weakness of Isra'il's narration or give it strength?
The questioner : Isra'il's narration gives strength.
The Shaykh : No, the question is the opposite.
The questioner : Yes, like this more... .
The Shaykh : It does not matter, but I want the answer to be according to the question, not to turn the question on me; because it may lead me to something he does not want.
The questioner : I have not known yet.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, I say: after we looked at Isra'il's complete narration, and studied it for its specificity; we said: that Isra'il is a trustworthy man from the menThe Shaykh : of the hadith; so his narration is valid, so now we want to turn to Shurayk's narration, and it is like Isra'il's narration, so we consider Shurayk's narration a support for Isra'il's narration, does this support from Shurayk give Isra'il's narration strength or weakness?
The questioner : It gives it strength.
The Shaykh : This is it, so now remain, say what you want, Shurayk's narration was strengthened by Isra'il's narration, or do not say Isra'il's narration was strengthened by Shurayk's narration, but say: it increased in strength; clear?
The questioner : Is that clear?
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : We return to the original question, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : And that is that I say: if you see that Isra'il's narration does not exist...; so do we say that this is of the type of abridgment of the story if it passes by us?
The Shaykh : Meaning you returned from where we started, and the answer to this has preceded.
The questioner : Yes, and I understood that it is no.
The Shaykh : That is correct.
The questioner: Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.