The questioner: Al-Bukhari narrated in the *Jami'* a hadith from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), via Ibn Shihab, in the chapter on the beginning of creation, in which he followed it with the hadith of Ibn al-Nazir.

The questioner : Al-Bukhari narrated in the *Jami'* a hadith from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), via Ibn Shihab, in the chapter on the beginning of creation, in which he then followed it with the hadith of Ibn al-Nazir.

The Shaykh : The hadith of Ibn...?

The questioner : Al-Nazir.

The Shaykh : What?

The questioner : Al-Nazir!

The Shaykh : Al-Nazir?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : In it: "That Heraclius went out one day in Iliya, and he was of a foul disposition, so he asked his courtiers, and they said: 'Indeed, the king of circumcision has appeared, and I have seen him,' meaning this, a hadith like this. The question: How was it permissible for al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him and be pleased with him) to leave this hadith in the *Sahih*, when the hadith suggests strengthening the reports of the astrologers and approving their misguidance?"

The Shaykh : First: is it a hadith or not?

The questioner : Yes, it is a hadith.

The Shaykh : No, I mean, is it a hadith traced back to the Messenger?

The questioner : Yes, no, it is not traced back to the Messenger, but to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her).

The Shaykh : I ask you to be a little more careful. When we ask if it is a hadith, everyone knows that a hadith means a hadith of the Messenger. So it is not a hadith traced back to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). That is first. Second: Al-Bukhari and all the imams of hadith narrate the story in its entirety, and it may contain things that are not from the words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). They only intend what they intended from what relates to the subject of their book. The *Sahih al-Jami'* appears, as you know, to be the *musnad* of the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). So if, in the chain of narration of a hadith traced back to the Prophet, there is a hadith that stops at a Companion, even if this hadith that stops at a Companion does not succeed or stand up to scientific criticism, and may in fact be rejected, then the question is not valid. Because this came incidentally and as a follow-up to the narration that reached Imam al-Bukhari. And I give an example of this that is much more important than this example: Imam al-Bukhari narrated at the beginning of his *Sahih* the story of the descent of Jibril (peace be upon him) upon him, the long hadith from Aisha, and that when the revelation was cut off from him, he said: from al-Zuhri, because the hadith is also via al-Zuhri. He said: "And it reached us that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), after the revelation was cut off from him, would climb to the top of a mountain and intend to throw himself down."

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : It is not said here: Why did he narrate this when it is not according to his condition? Because it is a report from al-Zuhri, he said: "It reached me." Whereas al-Zuhri narrated the hadith from Aisha, if my memory serves me correctly, via Urwah from Aisha, and al-Zuhri was a student of Urwah. So when he came to the story of the suicide, let us call it suicide, al-Zuhri said: "It reached us." So the story of the suicide is *munqati'* (disconnected) and is not according to al-Bukhari's condition. So it is not said here, may Allah bless you, why did he narrate this when it is not according to his condition? Because the narration reached him in this form. The one who wants to study *Sahih al-Bukhari* studies it within the known rules of terminology, among which is that what is cited from *Sahih al-Bukhari* is what is *musnad* and according to al-Bukhari's condition. And from this it becomes clear to the student of knowledge and the one who knows the science of hadith and its terminology: that all the hadiths of al-Bukhari are not on the same level of authenticity, even the *musnad* ones, let alone the *mu'allaq* (suspended) hadiths. In al-Bukhari there are more than a thousand hadiths that are not *musnad*, but are *mu'allaq*. So it is not said why did he mention them in the *musnad al-jami' al-sahih*, because this is his terminology, and every people may use the terminology they wish. If it is known to the scholars, and even to the students of knowledge, that not every hadith mentioned in al-Bukhari is *sahih* (authentic), contrary to what some people who have no knowledge keep repeating, and who only speak with Islamic emotions that are not accompanied by the sciences of hadith, then it is not said: So why did al-Bukhari narrate *mu'allaq* hadiths, some of which are not authentic? And why did al-Bukhari narrate, in the middle of the story of the interruption of revelation to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), this report from al-Zuhri? And likewise what you mentioned regarding the verification of the astrologers or similar to that, as you mentioned. Because we say: the narration reached al-Bukhari in this form, so he mentioned it as it reached him. Then he is not criticized or objected to by saying that this is not according to his condition, because he stated what his condition is: *al-musnad al-jami' al-sahih*. This is what I have, and Allah knows best.