Whether it is attributed to a single cause or multiple causes; is there a limit to the number of causes such that the hadith becomes unsuitable for reinforcement, or such that it can be elevated to the level of hasan li-ghayrihi if it comes from another path that supports this hadith, or is a single cause equivalent to ten causes in this regard?

The questioner : May Allah grant you safety. In a hadith, it is either attributed to a single cause or multiple causes; is there a limit to the number of causes such that the hadith becomes unsuitable for reinforcement, or such that it...

The Shaykh : ...is not suitable?

The questioner : ...is suitable for reinforcement, can it be elevated to the level of hasan li-ghayrihi if it comes from another path that supports this hadith, or is a single cause equivalent to ten causes in this regard?

The Shaykh : Yes, as long as you have traced ten causes and a single cause, the answer is, hypothetically... And if you assume the reality that two causes coincide in the chain, such as weakness—for example—or disconnection, or weakness and marasil, and the like; then the cause is the cause, not shudhdh, according to the view that the chain is weak.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, we do not know that they say: its chain is very weak.

The questioner : Only two causes in some hadiths, up to about five causes.
The Shaykh: How?

The questioner : In some hadiths, it reaches about five causes, and perhaps more.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. This may exist, but the rare has no ruling. For example, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, when he spoke in his beneficial treatise "Sharh al-Nukhba" regarding the justification of the hadith scholars' rejection of using marasil hadiths as evidence, mentioned that the reality is that it was established through induction and tracking that many of the marisil took it from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Companion. Then he says: It is established from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Companion. Then he comes with the fourth tracking, which is the Companion, and the fifth is the Companion; this exists; but it exists in a rare and very rare manner. In reality, it is sufficient that we sometimes find in a chain containing marasil or disconnection that either one or two persons have dropped from the chain. So, as you know, if the dropped person is one, it is munqati', and if two are dropped consecutively, it is mu'dal. But the Hafiz who is attested to for the breadth of his memorization = -- May Allah reward you with good -- = can say what he said. But with our research and study, we do not mention anything other than the mu'dal hadith from which two or more have dropped from the chain. We do not mention that it has passed us that three, four, or five have dropped from the chain, as the Hafiz said. And the saying of the Hafiz is undoubtedly accepted, but it is rare, and the rare has no ruling.

The questioner : I know from your rule the non-acceptance of the marasil hadith for reinforcement through the chain to its marisi, so here two causes may have coincided in the hadith; marasil and the weakness of one of the narrators, or disconnection in those below the marisi; is this not considered a contradiction with what I mentioned earlier?

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Because two or more causes have coincided in the hadith; so what is valid is reinforcement; that means it is very weak.

The Shaykh : Is reinforcement not valid even if it comes from another connected path?

The questioner : If this hadith comes connected from another weak path, does the hadith remain weak and not disappear with this marasil path that did not become valid to its marisi?

The Shaykh : Why? Am I saying this?!

The questioner : You said this, yes.

The Shaykh : And where?

The questioner : In your response to Maududi.

The Shaykh: In which hadith?

The questioner : At the hadith of Asma'.

The Shaykh : And where?

The questioner : In the hadith of Asma'.

The Shaykh : No.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Am I refuting the hadith of Asma'?!

The questioner : You are in your response to Maududi.

The Shaykh : I am asking you, am I refuting the hadith of Asma' absolutely, or am I refuting a narration from it?

The questioner : You are refuting a narration from it.

The Shaykh : Which one?

The questioner : And in your mind. The one that exceeds the two hands.

The Shaykh : Well; is it connected?

The questioner : No, I do not want to discuss this, O Shaykh, but I am discussing a specific detail.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. If... we have a way to attribute to a person what he does not believe, then the example must first be present, and it must be consistent with the call.

The questioner : This example, O Shaykh, is present and established in the books of terminology, as in "Tadrib al-Rawi" and others. In "Tadrib al-Rawi" and others, they stipulated, saying: that the chain must be valid to...

The Shaykh : You are now speaking about me, may Allah bless you.

The questioner : I am speaking about you, and you quoted this, and in your response to Maududi.

The Shaykh : ... this is a deviation.

The questioner : Why is it a deviation?

The Shaykh : You are saying, allow me, may Allah bless you, when I say: this is a deviation, you oppose me and say: No, it is not a deviation, there is no benefit in this speech, but—if you allow me—but when you hear from me something you see as wrong, you do not say: No, it is not a deviation, but you establish my speech that I see as wrong, so I am now asking you: the addition that you denied on Maududi came connected from a path and came marasil with two causes, marasil and weakness; so the answer is to say: Yes, or to say: No?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Well; what is the connected one with this addition?

The questioner : With this addition?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : That is the addition.

The Shaykh : No... about the addition, what is the connected one?

The questioner : No, I did not mention that it is connected; rather, Maududi cited the hadith of Qatadah.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, this is marasil and has no corroborating narration...

The questioner : He came with a corroborating narration and... on the man who is in his corroborating narration.

The Shaykh : Is the corroborating narration connected or marasil?

The questioner : Marasil, but from another path it is.

The Shaykh : You have contradicted what you claimed—may Allah bless you.

The questioner : Yes?

The Shaykh : You have contradicted what you claimed and what you attributed to me.

The questioner : ... the understanding of what I intended.

The Shaykh : Allow me, you said—and I hope I am mistaken and you will say: I was mistaken—you said: that I am from my methodology that I strengthen the marasil hadith that has two causes; marasil and weakness.

The questioner : No, the opposite, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Be patient, wait for me; it came connected from another path, so I strengthen the marasil with the connected, even though the marasil has two causes.

The questioner : No, I said the opposite.

The Shaykh : The opposite? The opposite, the result is the same, what is the opposite? The connected one has two causes?

The questioner : You said: that you.

The Shaykh : The connected one has two causes?

The questioner : The connected one has one cause or more, I have no business with it, you said, O Shaykh Nasser... my question.

The Shaykh : I understand that you say marasil and strong for it a section; is this speech correct or no?

The questioner : No, that is not what I intended.

The Shaykh : Then what did you intend?

The questioner : I intended a specific rule; and that is that the connected weak hadith, if we want to reinforce it with a marasil hadith, it is necessary that the chain be valid to its marisi, otherwise it is not valid to reinforce the connected one.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, O Professor Sa'd, this is what I repeat to your ears, this is my speech summarized by you saying—about me—that if a marasil comes with two causes, marasil and weakness.

The questioner : No, O Shaykh, the one whose chain is valid to its marisi, it has no cause except marasil only.

The Shaykh : And the weakness that has two causes, in what?

The questioner : No, this is another discussion, this is a hadith that came to us connected but weak, weak only, and we want to reinforce it with a marasil hadith, so you stipulate in this marasil that the chain be valid to its marisi, otherwise it is not suitable to reinforce that weak hadith.

The Shaykh : And what am I saying—may Allah bless you? So the marasil whose chain to the marisi is valid, is this a valid marasil or no?

The questioner : A valid marasil, yes.

The Shaykh : Well; a connected weak corroborating narration came for it, does it strengthen the marasil or not?

The questioner : It does not strengthen it.

The Shaykh : Well; so what is it that is not strengthened by?

The questioner : If the marasil hadith's chain did not become valid to its marisi.

The Shaykh : That is it; so it has two causes.

The questioner : So it has two causes.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, it has been an hour I repeat to your ears it has two causes, it has marasil and it has weakness from below.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well; may Allah forgive you.

The questioner : So you do not strengthen it.

The Shaykh : We strengthen it, how not? ... and where is the example you say: I do not strengthen it? You said the hadith of Maududi. O Shaykh Sa'd, the important thing is not the book, the important thing is the idea.

The questioner : The idea, yes, I do not want...

The Shaykh : Therefore, your bringing up the book is not appropriate.

The questioner : I am opening...

The Shaykh : ...Do not rush me. I am telling you: if the book contains a hadith with two defects—being mursal (missing the Companion link) and weakness—and it comes with a connected but weak chain; then I am not as you thought. But if it comes as a mursal added to a mursal; then I do not strengthen it. So, the addition you mention, which I weakened in my response to Maududi—and he also weakened it—is there a connected chain and a mursal, where it is mursal from one side and weak from below from another side? So now you say: yes or no? If you say yes, you have strengthened a mursal with a connected chain; then I accept that. But if you weakened a mursal with a mursal, I accept that. But you say: it is my habit to weaken what is a mursal with an added weakness and has a corroborating connected chain, and the corroborating chain is the response to Maududi. In Maududi, that addition did not come connected with a weak chain, and mursal with a mursal chain; correct? No, weak—also—this is what is in the book. If... in this; then you can go back to the example.

The questioner : My intention is not... the nature of the book or the content of the book, but the intention is the rule, which means...

The Shaykh : I have answered you on this, and I told you: may Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : Yes, and I mention in this, but it does not come to mind; I remember in this... it previously passed in the book of Funerals, and I remember even the narrator by whom I weakened the hadith; and it is Ash'ath ibn Suwar, I think he narrates from al-Hasan al-Basri; it seems you mentioned a statement by one of the scholars that there is another path for it, then you criticized it and said: Yes, this would be if the chain to al-Hasan al-Basri were authentic, but since it is not authentic, it is not suitable for compensation (injbar); because it is mursal, and I mentioned.

The Shaykh : What is the corroborating evidence (shahid)?

The questioner : The corroborating evidence is the rule by which we are measuring now.

The Shaykh : Fine; are you in a hurry for the rule?

The questioner : The rule only.

The Shaykh : Or with some branches that deviated from the rule or agreed with the rule?

The questioner : I wanted the rule only.

The Shaykh : And I told you the rule.

The questioner : Does a hadith in which more than one defect is present qualify for compensation (injbar) or not? And you answered, may your excellence be rewarded, that it qualifies for compensation, even if more than one defect is present in it. So you said: How do you reconcile your discussion in this when you say: if the hadith has the defect of being mursal, then another defect is added to it below the mursal and the chain to the mursal is not authentic; then it does not qualify for compensation; how do we reconcile between these two discussions? This is all my statement.

The Shaykh : This is your statement, but you are asking me: what is my opinion? I am telling you: my opinion is that the mursal, if there is weakness in the path to it that is usually compensated; then it qualifies to be strengthened by the connected chain; and let us suppose that this mursal came connected; then that means in it...

Another questioner : Or mursal from another side.

The Shaykh : ...the speech—may Allah bless you—I am the one who wants... the perspective changes. This mursal which has two defects: being mursal and the weakness of one of the narrators. We suppose that this mursal is connected with that weakness from the weakness of the narrators. Is this weakness compensated or not compensated? Now we are talking about the connected chain, not the mursal. So this weakness is compensated, correct? When the mursal hadith, according to many scholars like Malik, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i with his known condition, and the narration from Imam Ahmad, is not in the matter of weakness like any weak hadith; because if one did not argue with it, it remains in the second scenario; where we supposed that the mursal is connected, the weakness which is below the mursal remains a weakness that is compensated. So whether it was mursal or it was connected and came connected from another path, the first path is strengthened, whether you supposed its being mursal or supposed its being connected; because the weakness of the mursal is a slight weakness, until some who said in its authenticity, as I hinted earlier. So if I say or proceed on this rule in some hadiths; if I proceed in some hadiths contrary to what you are hearing from me now, then this is an error in applying the rule, and it does not mean that I say the rule is the opposite of that. And every scholar, whether his knowledge is in hadith or in jurisprudence, sometimes brings an example that contradicts the rule he started to follow. So either he has an excuse and is excluded from the rule from the generality of the rule, and for some reason it was said: there is no general statement except that it has been specified, or it is a mistake on his part in applying the rule.

The questioner : I do not think it is a mistake on his part; because you... in your books.

The Shaykh : Fine—may Allah bless you—you collect them without sufficient evidence. First, I was invited to respond to Maududi, and I am as certain as certainty that Maududi did not bring an addition in that hadith; it is mursal from one side and has weakness below, then it came connected.

The questioner : No, it did not come connected, it may be.

The Shaykh : Did you claim it this way?

The questioner : I do not want—O Shaykh—to research this point, I want to research a specific detail only.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you; why did you mention Maududi? Is it not to prove.

The questioner : You demanded the location from me, so I said: in your response to Maududi only.

The Shaykh : Yes, but this is not a proof; because in my response to Maududi I mentioned a mursal, and it is the mursal of Qatadah and the mu'dal (missing two links) of Ibn Durayd. You said that I weakened it even though it came.

The questioner : No problem, the point of Qatadah, I mentioned this point.

The Shaykh : There is no power nor strength except by Allah! ... Your claim, O Shaykh Sa'd, what is the point of arguing like this? The origin of your claim—at least as I understood it—is that you attribute to me that I contradicted the rule that I am mentioning now.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Do you see? I hope you do not rush me. Where did I contradict the rule? I said: when I responded to Maududi; meaning: that Maududi authenticated or argued with an addition, and it came mursal and it came connected, but the mursal has weakness from below, and therefore I did not count the connected one. This was your statement; so let us turn the page, and say: may Allah forgive what has passed!

The questioner : If you please, O Shaykh, now the mursal hadith that we want to use to compensate the other path; is the other path the same whether it is mursal from another side or connected with weakness in it? The same or not?

The Shaykh : I said this statement.

The questioner : This is what is now.

The Shaykh : You are repeating—may Allah bless you—you are repeating what I said. When I illustrated for you the mursal with two defects: being mursal and the weakness of one of the narrators, so I supposed, I told you earlier that this mursal came connected from the same path of the weak narrator; did I not say this?

The questioner : It is not a condition.

The Shaykh : There is no power nor strength except by Allah, I am telling you: is it a condition or not a condition?

The questioner : I know what I said, O Shaykh, and this is not the place for discussion, may Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide us and you.

The questioner : And beware of that.

The Shaykh : O Allah, amen. This is enough for you.