What is the validity of the statement that there is no difference in citing al-Musnad of Muslim or his Sahih, as there is no difference between them in Muslim’s view?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Excuse me, excuse me, I did not understand you. Is there no difference between the introduction and what?
The questioner : The principle.
The Shaykh : The original form!
The questioner : The introduction to "Sahih Muslim."
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And the original book, meaning what comes after the introduction.
The Shaykh : Yes, there is no difference.
The questioner : The difference, meaning that you cite the introduction, he says it is not necessary to cite the introduction?
The Shaykh : Yes, I understand now.
The questioner : Ah, the method of citation.
The Shaykh : Meaning, if a hadith comes...
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : In the introduction to "Sahih Muslim."
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Then it is authentic according to Muslim.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And that there is no difference.
The questioner : Meaning, you say "Narrated by Muslim."
The Shaykh : Yes, this is established based on this opinion. So we say now, does this mean that this distinction is lifted and that Muslim did not specify that?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or is it because the reality specifies that? That there is no difference?
The questioner : No, the one who says that says first: that Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) did not specify in his introduction or anywhere prior that there is a difference between the introduction and the original. Second, he says by induction that he has examined many narrators and Muslim mixed them in the original and extracted them in the introduction.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So we do not find, meaning, any differences between the introduction and the original.
The Shaykh : Good. Now, you noticed in your speech that you mentioned the narrators and did not mention the hadiths!
The questioner : And the hadiths.
The Shaykh : Ah, then attach the hadiths to the narrators now.
The questioner : No, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Meaning, he says, for example, there is no weak hadith in the introduction.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, according to Muslim or according to others?
The questioner: No...
The Shaykh : We just finished. The question was whether it means that Muslim himself did not distinguish between the hadiths in the introduction and the hadiths in the original, or others?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Muslim did not distinguish?
The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : We agree with this. Okay, the question came: Did no one from the scholars distinguish between the introduction and the original? You said yes, you quoted from so-and-so, it is not necessary to name him for us, you mentioned that he did not find a difference between the narrators who are in the introduction and those who are in the original. Then a question came to you: And the hadiths?! So you said and the hadiths as well. Okay, I say as well, according to the one you are referring to, did he not find a hadith that a researcher can say is a weak hadith that Muslim narrated in the introduction?
The questioner : He says, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Do not repeat your words, please, but answer my question.
The questioner : Yes, O Shaykh, he says.
The Shaykh : And if it is not clear, I will repeat it for you.
The questioner : He says, O our Shaykh, there is no weak hadith, neither in the introduction nor in the original, unless, for example, if he wants to research, he does not research in the original, for example, but he means Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him).
The Shaykh : Okay, we are done with Muslim. Muslim did not say that there is a weak hadith in the original.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And he did not say that there is a weak hadith in the introduction.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We are done.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : But did others say?
The questioner : He says the early scholars did not say, for example, no one said it except among the later scholars. The distinction between the introduction and the original, he says, I did not find anyone from the early scholars who lived with Muslim or the students of Muslim who mentioned this distinction.
The Shaykh : It seems that the one you are quoting is not an expert!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We are now talking about the original, let us leave the introduction.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The original, did some of the early scholars say there are weak hadiths in the original?
The questioner : Regarding the one I am quoting, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : I do not know.
The Shaykh : What does this statement benefit?
The questioner : For example, my question, O Shaykh, regarding your opinion, is there a difference between the introduction and the original, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Of course, my brother, the difference exists. First, the introduction is an introduction consisting of twenty pages... or.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the original, as you know, is eight volumes.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if weak hadiths occurred in the original, a researcher who is a scholar of the critique and vindication of narrators and the ways of hadiths and the anomalous and denounced hadiths does not doubt that there are weak hadiths in the original, which many of the early scholars denounced, let alone the later scholars. So if this is found in the original, what is your opinion about the introduction?! For example, in the introduction there is a hadith: Do you know that this is in the introduction of Muslim? Do you know that this hadith is in the introduction of Muslim? You do not know.
The questioner: No, no.
The Shaykh : What is in my mind is that this hadith is weak and its defect is disconnection. So if there is in the original, which researchers agree that conditions were set for it—this is for your benefit, not for my benefit—if this exists in the original, then it is more likely and more likely to exist in the introduction.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : Then we do not care, my brother, except for the truth. Those who attached themselves to this knowledge, as I say in many introductions or responses, are like the saying "they defecated before they were circumcised." They learned some of the science of terminology and the science of men and the like, then they thought they had become scholars of hadith, and they issue amazing, blunt opinions that force us to say and apply to them this proverb "they defecated before they were circumcised." Allah is the helper, and excuse us, O our brothers.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : The time has now increased by a quarter of an hour.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Welcome, may Allah bless you, in the safety of Allah.
The questioner : I entrust you to Allah.
The Shaykh : In the safety of Allah, welcome.
The questioner : The principle.
The Shaykh : The original form!
The questioner : The introduction to "Sahih Muslim."
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And the original book, meaning what comes after the introduction.
The Shaykh : Yes, there is no difference.
The questioner : The difference, meaning that you cite the introduction, he says it is not necessary to cite the introduction?
The Shaykh : Yes, I understand now.
The questioner : Ah, the method of citation.
The Shaykh : Meaning, if a hadith comes...
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : In the introduction to "Sahih Muslim."
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Then it is authentic according to Muslim.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And that there is no difference.
The questioner : Meaning, you say "Narrated by Muslim."
The Shaykh : Yes, this is established based on this opinion. So we say now, does this mean that this distinction is lifted and that Muslim did not specify that?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or is it because the reality specifies that? That there is no difference?
The questioner : No, the one who says that says first: that Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) did not specify in his introduction or anywhere prior that there is a difference between the introduction and the original. Second, he says by induction that he has examined many narrators and Muslim mixed them in the original and extracted them in the introduction.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So we do not find, meaning, any differences between the introduction and the original.
The Shaykh : Good. Now, you noticed in your speech that you mentioned the narrators and did not mention the hadiths!
The questioner : And the hadiths.
The Shaykh : Ah, then attach the hadiths to the narrators now.
The questioner : No, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Meaning, he says, for example, there is no weak hadith in the introduction.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, according to Muslim or according to others?
The questioner: No...
The Shaykh : We just finished. The question was whether it means that Muslim himself did not distinguish between the hadiths in the introduction and the hadiths in the original, or others?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Muslim did not distinguish?
The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : We agree with this. Okay, the question came: Did no one from the scholars distinguish between the introduction and the original? You said yes, you quoted from so-and-so, it is not necessary to name him for us, you mentioned that he did not find a difference between the narrators who are in the introduction and those who are in the original. Then a question came to you: And the hadiths?! So you said and the hadiths as well. Okay, I say as well, according to the one you are referring to, did he not find a hadith that a researcher can say is a weak hadith that Muslim narrated in the introduction?
The questioner : He says, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Do not repeat your words, please, but answer my question.
The questioner : Yes, O Shaykh, he says.
The Shaykh : And if it is not clear, I will repeat it for you.
The questioner : He says, O our Shaykh, there is no weak hadith, neither in the introduction nor in the original, unless, for example, if he wants to research, he does not research in the original, for example, but he means Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him).
The Shaykh : Okay, we are done with Muslim. Muslim did not say that there is a weak hadith in the original.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And he did not say that there is a weak hadith in the introduction.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We are done.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : But did others say?
The questioner : He says the early scholars did not say, for example, no one said it except among the later scholars. The distinction between the introduction and the original, he says, I did not find anyone from the early scholars who lived with Muslim or the students of Muslim who mentioned this distinction.
The Shaykh : It seems that the one you are quoting is not an expert!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We are now talking about the original, let us leave the introduction.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The original, did some of the early scholars say there are weak hadiths in the original?
The questioner : Regarding the one I am quoting, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : I do not know.
The Shaykh : What does this statement benefit?
The questioner : For example, my question, O Shaykh, regarding your opinion, is there a difference between the introduction and the original, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Of course, my brother, the difference exists. First, the introduction is an introduction consisting of twenty pages... or.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the original, as you know, is eight volumes.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if weak hadiths occurred in the original, a researcher who is a scholar of the critique and vindication of narrators and the ways of hadiths and the anomalous and denounced hadiths does not doubt that there are weak hadiths in the original, which many of the early scholars denounced, let alone the later scholars. So if this is found in the original, what is your opinion about the introduction?! For example, in the introduction there is a hadith:
Place people in their proper stations
أنزلوا الناس منازلهمThe questioner: No, no.
The Shaykh : What is in my mind is that this hadith is weak and its defect is disconnection. So if there is in the original, which researchers agree that conditions were set for it—this is for your benefit, not for my benefit—if this exists in the original, then it is more likely and more likely to exist in the introduction.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : Then we do not care, my brother, except for the truth. Those who attached themselves to this knowledge, as I say in many introductions or responses, are like the saying "they defecated before they were circumcised." They learned some of the science of terminology and the science of men and the like, then they thought they had become scholars of hadith, and they issue amazing, blunt opinions that force us to say and apply to them this proverb "they defecated before they were circumcised." Allah is the helper, and excuse us, O our brothers.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : The time has now increased by a quarter of an hour.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Welcome, may Allah bless you, in the safety of Allah.
The questioner : I entrust you to Allah.
The Shaykh : In the safety of Allah, welcome.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.