Ibn Rajab differed on this issue and adopted the methodology of the early scholars, such as al-Bukhari’s position regarding Ibn al-Madini.

The questioner : All right; Shaykh, now Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him) means he differed on this issue and adopted the methodology of the early scholars, like al-Bukhari regarding Ibn al-Madini.

The Shaykh: He did not oppose this.

The questioner : Do you read, Shaykh? He mentioned this book.

The Shaykh : No, he did not differ. You are mistaken now.

The questioner : All right; I read it, Shaykh, and I found that he differed.

The Shaykh : Shaykh, I am telling you.

The questioner: : Go ahead.

The Shaykh: Ibn Rajab agreed with al-Bukhari.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : al-Bukhari did not say: "The establishment of meeting does not necessitate the non-establishment of hearing"; rather, he stipulated that whoever narrates from a shaykh without a formulation that explicitly states hearing must have established that he met him.The Shaykh : This is what al-Bukhari said, and this is what Ibn Rajab said or chose; whereas you are now saying: Does the establishment of meeting necessitate the establishment of hearing? That is, in any hadith, a man comes who narrates from a shaykh whose meeting with him is established; does it necessitate that in this hadith he heard it from him?The Shaykh : Did he hear this hadith? We told you: It is not necessary. But now it becomes a proof if we return to the opinion of the majority and the opinion of Imam Muslim, contrary to al-Bukhari. It is not necessary that the meeting be established, as long as this narrator who narrated from his shaykh without a formulation establishing the meeting is not a tadlis practitioner, and he is a contemporary of him. Ibn Rajab chose al-Bukhari’s madhhab; so what do you want to show me?

The questioner: But here, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : If a narrator narrates something from a shaykh who is his contemporary, and it has not been established that he met him, then it is attributed to disconnection, and the majority are satisfied with contemporaneity. Is this your understanding, or is it not?

The questioner: You understand it one way and not the other.

The Shaykh : And what is it?

The questioner : It must mean, for example, that the narrator narrated this hadith.

The Shaykh : I mean, every hadith must mean; even if he is not a tadlis practitioner?

Another questioner : In the answer, mention what you understand, ... mention what ... what is in your mind now.

The Shaykh: Even if he is not a deceiver (mudallis)?

The questioner : ... No, if he is a tadlis practitioner, it is necessary; if he is not a tadlis practitioner ... .

The Shaykh : If he is not a tadlis practitioner?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : And what am I saying?
... ... ...

The Shaykh : ... It is the same thing in terms of usul, one, two, three. Do you not say that al-Bukhari stipulates the establishment of meeting between the narrator and the one narrated from?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And I say: Yes, okay?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : All right, and that Imam Muslim is satisfied with contemporaneity?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And that al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab is with al-Bukhari?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And I say: Yes, all right; what is left? It is the last question; does al-Bukhari stipulate that if a narrator narrates from someone whose meeting with him is established; if he narrates a hadith from him without 'an 'anah without explicitly stating that he heard it, that he does not accept this narration?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : All right; this is what I have been telling you since the beginning.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.