What is your opinion regarding the statement of al-Bardiji?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh: This is ... a book.
The questioner: A book ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: He says, a house that speaks about the narrators of Qatadah, and it quotes from al-Bardiji, saying: "As for the hadiths of Qatadah that the shaykhs narrate, such as Hammad ibn Salama, Hammam, Aban, and al-Awza'i, one should look into the hadith. If the hadith is preserved from a path other than theirs from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and from Anas ibn Malik from another angle that is not rejected, then it is fine. But if it is not known from anyone from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) nor from a path from Anas except from the narration I mentioned to you, then it is munkar (denounced)." End of quote.
The Shaykh: This is the opinion of this speaker, al-Bardiji, and it is said about him what he said about those who narrate from Qatadah as munkar (denounced), because the meaning of this is that we would reject many hadiths in the two Sahihs that we do not find except from the path of Qatadah from Anas. The secret in this is that Qatadah, it is true, is a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains).
The questioner: ... from him Hammad or ...
The Shaykh: Yes, meaning he is a famous shaykh, meaning, Hammad is among the men of Muslim, as you know, and we mentioned Hammad.
The questioner: Hammad ibn Salama, Hammam, Aban, and al-Awza'i.
The Shaykh: Yes, all of them are imams. If we set Hammad aside, considering that al-Bukhari did not use him as evidence, the others were used as evidence.The Shaykh : So the important thing is that if we adopt this statement, it means that we would reject many hadiths in the two Sahihs.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh: And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. From a path other than Hammad, for example.
The questioner: The hadiths that al-Bukhari and Muslim brought from Qatadah, do ... meaning they have no second path.
The Shaykh: It is not absolutely necessary, at least, at least look at what results. Who do you think is capable of knowing or testifying that a certain path in the two Sahihs or one of them from Qatadah from Anas has another path, as our friend wants? Who is able to enter this narrow entrance? The general people or the special people?
The questioner: The special of the special.
The Shaykh: Well done, you got ahead of me. The special of the special, indeed. If the matter is so, then what is the position of those who are the special, not the special of the special? What is the position of those who are below the special, who read in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim and find the narration from the path of Qatadah, and they rule that this is munkar (denounced)? Do they stop? No, then we have nullified the benefit from "the two Sahihs." The truth is, if it becomes clear to us in a narration of Qatadah from Anas a decisive defect, we leave off using his hadith as evidence.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh: - And upon you be peace - Even if it is in "the two Sahihs," meaning there is a difference between making the default rule not to use the narration of Qatadah from An as evidence, even if it is in the two Sahihs, and reversing it and saying the default rule is to use it as evidence, except if it becomes clear through the people of knowledge of this narration a decisive defect.
The questioner: ... Qatadah, does it mean it is accepted sometimes and left sometimes, or is there a criterion for this issue?
The Shaykh: There is no criterion except the rule: the default is that the narrator from Qatadah, if he is trustworthy like Hammad, let alone those above him, the default is that his narration is accepted, except as I said earlier, if a defect appears, then that is what prevents us from taking it, and not merely that he is a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains), otherwise we would return, as we said, to demolishing and wasting the narrations of Qatadah from Anas in the two Sahihs.
The questioner: In other than "the two Sahihs," in "the two Sahihs," meaning al-Bukhari and Muslim.
The Shaykh: The answer is general, covering what is in "the two Sahihs" and what is outside "the two Sahihs." The default is that we take the narration of Qatadah from Anas, because he was not one who frequently engaged in tadlis (concealment of defects in chains), as is the case, for example, of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir and the like, except if a defect appears. Yes.
The questioner: Regarding Abu Bakr al-Bardiji, the munkar (denounced) in his terminology is the isolated narration, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says. The munkar (denounced) in al-Bardiji's terminology is the isolated narration that has no supporting chain.
The Shaykh: It is possible these are terminologies that differ, but what is the context of the phrase? What is derived from it? Is this restriction derived from it? The munkar (denounced) with this restriction, I do not think so.
The questioner: Abu Bakr al-Bardiji.
The Shaykh: ... Please, go ahead.
The Shaykh: This is ... a book.
The questioner: A book ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: He says, a house that speaks about the narrators of Qatadah, and it quotes from al-Bardiji, saying: "As for the hadiths of Qatadah that the shaykhs narrate, such as Hammad ibn Salama, Hammam, Aban, and al-Awza'i, one should look into the hadith. If the hadith is preserved from a path other than theirs from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and from Anas ibn Malik from another angle that is not rejected, then it is fine. But if it is not known from anyone from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) nor from a path from Anas except from the narration I mentioned to you, then it is munkar (denounced)." End of quote.
The Shaykh: This is the opinion of this speaker, al-Bardiji, and it is said about him what he said about those who narrate from Qatadah as munkar (denounced), because the meaning of this is that we would reject many hadiths in the two Sahihs that we do not find except from the path of Qatadah from Anas. The secret in this is that Qatadah, it is true, is a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains).
The questioner: ... from him Hammad or ...
The Shaykh: Yes, meaning he is a famous shaykh, meaning, Hammad is among the men of Muslim, as you know, and we mentioned Hammad.
The questioner: Hammad ibn Salama, Hammam, Aban, and al-Awza'i.
The Shaykh: Yes, all of them are imams. If we set Hammad aside, considering that al-Bukhari did not use him as evidence, the others were used as evidence.The Shaykh : So the important thing is that if we adopt this statement, it means that we would reject many hadiths in the two Sahihs.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh: And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. From a path other than Hammad, for example.
The questioner: The hadiths that al-Bukhari and Muslim brought from Qatadah, do ... meaning they have no second path.
The Shaykh: It is not absolutely necessary, at least, at least look at what results. Who do you think is capable of knowing or testifying that a certain path in the two Sahihs or one of them from Qatadah from Anas has another path, as our friend wants? Who is able to enter this narrow entrance? The general people or the special people?
The questioner: The special of the special.
The Shaykh: Well done, you got ahead of me. The special of the special, indeed. If the matter is so, then what is the position of those who are the special, not the special of the special? What is the position of those who are below the special, who read in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim and find the narration from the path of Qatadah, and they rule that this is munkar (denounced)? Do they stop? No, then we have nullified the benefit from "the two Sahihs." The truth is, if it becomes clear to us in a narration of Qatadah from Anas a decisive defect, we leave off using his hadith as evidence.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh: - And upon you be peace - Even if it is in "the two Sahihs," meaning there is a difference between making the default rule not to use the narration of Qatadah from An as evidence, even if it is in the two Sahihs, and reversing it and saying the default rule is to use it as evidence, except if it becomes clear through the people of knowledge of this narration a decisive defect.
The questioner: ... Qatadah, does it mean it is accepted sometimes and left sometimes, or is there a criterion for this issue?
The Shaykh: There is no criterion except the rule: the default is that the narrator from Qatadah, if he is trustworthy like Hammad, let alone those above him, the default is that his narration is accepted, except as I said earlier, if a defect appears, then that is what prevents us from taking it, and not merely that he is a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains), otherwise we would return, as we said, to demolishing and wasting the narrations of Qatadah from Anas in the two Sahihs.
The questioner: In other than "the two Sahihs," in "the two Sahihs," meaning al-Bukhari and Muslim.
The Shaykh: The answer is general, covering what is in "the two Sahihs" and what is outside "the two Sahihs." The default is that we take the narration of Qatadah from Anas, because he was not one who frequently engaged in tadlis (concealment of defects in chains), as is the case, for example, of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir and the like, except if a defect appears. Yes.
The questioner: Regarding Abu Bakr al-Bardiji, the munkar (denounced) in his terminology is the isolated narration, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says. The munkar (denounced) in al-Bardiji's terminology is the isolated narration that has no supporting chain.
The Shaykh: It is possible these are terminologies that differ, but what is the context of the phrase? What is derived from it? Is this restriction derived from it? The munkar (denounced) with this restriction, I do not think so.
The questioner: Abu Bakr al-Bardiji.
The Shaykh: ... Please, go ahead.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.