How do you respond to al-Khatib al-Baghdadi where he says

The questioner: All right, our Shaykh, may Allah preserve you, here is a question regarding Ibn Jurayj’s *'an 'anah* from Ata, which is one of the issues you deferred discussing when we spoke about Ibn Jurayj. If he narrated from Ata, you mentioned in *al-Silsilah al-Sahihah* that he said, "If I say: Ata said, then it is from what I heard from him." And you asked a question, you raised a question: if he says "from Ata," does it hold this same status? Then you preferred and leaned toward equating the two. I came across a statement mentioned by al-Hafiz in *Hadi al-Sari* and in the book *Tughliq al-Ta'liq* where al-Khatib says, "The hadith scholars who were known for *tadlis* did not use *qala* (said) in *tadlis* as they used *'an* (from)." So, among those who are *mudallis* (practitioners of *tadlis*), it is not known for *tadlis*—he meant to mention this in defense of Imam al-Bukhari when Ibn Manda described him as a *mudallis* because he says "so-and-so said" from some of his sheikhs, and in some other narrations he says "I was told from so-and-so, he said." He is a *mudallis*. He said, "No." The defense of al-Bukhari is that the word *qala* (said) was not known in the custom of the *mudallis* as a means of *tadlis*.

The Shaykh : About it.

The questioner: Like *'an*. So the analogy is to analogize *'an* to *qala* in this case.

The Shaykh : That is not likely.

The questioner: Ah, it is not applicable, or it is with a difference. Yes.

The Shaykh: That is, with a difference, but it is not applicable. All right, if we accept this in principle, if a *mudallis* says *qala*, do we distinguish?

The questioner: No. For one who is known for *tadlis*, we do not distinguish. We do not distinguish.

The Shaykh: So why do we distinguish sometimes and not distinguish other times?

The questioner: Are you asking me now?

The Shaykh : Nor...

The questioner: You are asking me now. I thought you would answer after him.

The Shaykh: No, no, I am asking based on what you quoted.

The questioner: All right, what became clear to me from the words of al-Hafiz is that the ruling of *tadlis* is not established for this man merely because he used the word *qala*.

The Shaykh : I understood.

The questioner: Yes. As for one who is known for *tadlis*, if he says *qala*, *'an*, *dhakara* (mentioned), or *haddatha* (narrated), and all the possible expressions that imply ambiguity, they are all interpreted as *tadlis*.

The Shaykh: Ibn Jurayj is known for *tadlis*.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: So if he says *'an*, we should avoid his narration because he is a *mudallis*.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: But if he says "Ata said," we do not avoid him.

The questioner: We do not avoid him. Yes.

The Shaykh: All right, this distinction requires us to do the exact opposite, meaning if any *mudallis* says *qala* instead of *'an*, as long as there is no difference according to al-Khatib al-Baghdadi’s claim that the use of the word *qala* by a *mudallis* was not known to them before—you seem to be teasing me with sleepiness—

The questioner: No, no.

The Shaykh: Early? Ah, he says that it was not the custom of the *mudallis* to use *qala*, correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Yes, all right... So, if any *mudallis* says "so-and-so said," what do we do regarding the statement of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi?

The questioner: If we take it in its generality, we would follow it.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner: We would follow it.

The Shaykh: But it does not hold up.

The questioner: In reality, we suspend judgment on it.

The Shaykh: It does not hold up. I return to the point: as long as we have nothing preventing us from interpreting Ibn Jurayj’s word, or Ibn Jurayj’s phrase *'an*, as his saying *qala*, as long as we have only this word that you quoted from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, and its necessary consequence is that we reverse the issue entirely: if any *mudallis* says *qala*, it was not their practice to commit *tadlis* with the word *qala*, because the meaning of *qala* in al-Khatib’s terminology, or in al-Khatib’s phrasing, is like if he said "I heard."

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Correct?

The questioner: Yes, it is not used for *tadlis*.

The Shaykh: This means canceling this distinction that was mentioned entirely.

The questioner: All right, our Shaykh, if it is said that the *mudallis* plays with words and we fear from him, why did he not say "if I say *'an*"? If someone said, "We suspend judgment on his *'an 'anah* out of fear of him, because he might commit *tadlis* with one form and not with another," then if he says "I said" or "he said," he removes this suspicion from himself, and the other one, which he explicitly stated, still carries fear.

The Shaykh: There is no doubt that this objection is valid, but what is the strength of its objection? Is it to the degree that it prevents us or obliges us to distinguish between his saying *'an* and his saying *qala*? It would have been better as you say, but not everything that is best and comes to the mind of one who wants to speak is so. He said, "If I say 'Ata said,' then I heard from him." This was not an action of *qala*. And this opens a door for us: if he said "Ata mentioned," for example, why did he not say "he mentioned" and so on? No, the word *qala* originally does not imply direct connection, so it is like the word *'an*, which does not imply direct connection by virtue of sharing the same cause. And *dhakara* (mentioned) might also be the case.

The questioner: And *haddatha* (narrated).

The Shaykh: Ah, there are many expressions, and very many. The objection in that case would expand its circle such that it would cast doubt in the mind that this objection is not valid.

The questioner: All right, does this also strengthen, our Shaykh, adding to it another corroborating factor that strengthens this equating of *qala* and *'an* in the case of Ibn Jurayj from Ata, that Ibn Jurayj narrated extensively from Ata and was constantly with him? The previous statement from al-Dhahabi that those who narrate extensively from *mudallis* are more knowledgeable about their hadith, and so on. Can this answer be strengthened by what al-Dhahabi said about al-A'mash and some of his sheikhs?

The Shaykh: It is strengthened. Yes.

The questioner: It is strengthened.

The Shaykh: This is good of you.