Regarding the criticism of a break in the chain between Abu 'Ubaydah and 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Regarding the criticism of a break in the chain between Abu 'Ubaydah and 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud; what is the reason for some critics to say that the hadith of Abu 'Ubaydah from Ibn Mas'ud was included in the "Musnad," or that we include it in the "Musnad"?
The Shaykh : Included it in the Musnad?
The questioner : On the basis that it is connected, meaning, he said: We included it in the "Musnad."
The Shaykh : Who said that?
The questioner : I mention it from 'Ali ibn al-Madini.
The Shaykh : It does not mean specifically Abu 'Ubaydah; that is, he narrated and heard from his father 'Abdullah.
The questioner : He explicitly states that he did not hear it, but he says: We included it in the "Musnad."
The Shaykh : This is what I wanted to tell you: he included it in the "Musnad" on the basis that Ibn Mas'ud was a Companion, so the hadiths narrated from him are attributed to him without doubt. However, this does not mean that the ruling for every hadith attributed to any Companion is that it is connected. Therefore, there is a general and a specific aspect: the "Musnad" is what mentions the Companion, whereas connection must be established in every layer of the chain of narration. So, this statement by 'Ali ibn al-Madini does not contradict what al-Tirmidhi and others mentioned, especially since this criticism of a break in the chain is based on the statement of some writers mentioned in the biography of Abu 'Ubaydah that when his father died, he was about two or three years old in that vicinity, such that he was not of discerning age, let alone proficient. So, such a statement does not contradict the explicit, established criticism of a break in the chain.
The questioner : It is not possible, O Shaykh, that he presented it as connected and used it as evidence, given that they said...
The Shaykh : How is this—may Allah reward you—when you say that he says it is not...?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay; how can this be?
The questioner : Regarding his knowledge of his father's hadith or something like that.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Meaning, his knowledge of his father's hadith.
The Shaykh : And if so, meaning, if we say that every person who did not catch up with his father has memorized his hadith and that the one who transmitted it to him is trustworthy?! No one among the scholars of knowledge says this. Otherwise, if we expanded this circle, we would close the door to criticism of a break in the chain.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Regarding the criticism of a break in the chain between Abu 'Ubaydah and 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud; what is the reason for some critics to say that the hadith of Abu 'Ubaydah from Ibn Mas'ud was included in the "Musnad," or that we include it in the "Musnad"?
The Shaykh : Included it in the Musnad?
The questioner : On the basis that it is connected, meaning, he said: We included it in the "Musnad."
The Shaykh : Who said that?
The questioner : I mention it from 'Ali ibn al-Madini.
The Shaykh : It does not mean specifically Abu 'Ubaydah; that is, he narrated and heard from his father 'Abdullah.
The questioner : He explicitly states that he did not hear it, but he says: We included it in the "Musnad."
The Shaykh : This is what I wanted to tell you: he included it in the "Musnad" on the basis that Ibn Mas'ud was a Companion, so the hadiths narrated from him are attributed to him without doubt. However, this does not mean that the ruling for every hadith attributed to any Companion is that it is connected. Therefore, there is a general and a specific aspect: the "Musnad" is what mentions the Companion, whereas connection must be established in every layer of the chain of narration. So, this statement by 'Ali ibn al-Madini does not contradict what al-Tirmidhi and others mentioned, especially since this criticism of a break in the chain is based on the statement of some writers mentioned in the biography of Abu 'Ubaydah that when his father died, he was about two or three years old in that vicinity, such that he was not of discerning age, let alone proficient. So, such a statement does not contradict the explicit, established criticism of a break in the chain.
The questioner : It is not possible, O Shaykh, that he presented it as connected and used it as evidence, given that they said...
The Shaykh : How is this—may Allah reward you—when you say that he says it is not...?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay; how can this be?
The questioner : Regarding his knowledge of his father's hadith or something like that.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Meaning, his knowledge of his father's hadith.
The Shaykh : And if so, meaning, if we say that every person who did not catch up with his father has memorized his hadith and that the one who transmitted it to him is trustworthy?! No one among the scholars of knowledge says this. Otherwise, if we expanded this circle, we would close the door to criticism of a break in the chain.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.