Clarification of a difficulty that arose in the hadith (Whoever hears of me from my Ummah, a Jew or a Christian, and then does not believe in me, will enter the Fire).

The Shaykh : Regarding the People of the Book, what is disliked is that it is obligatory for them to enter the Fire. That is, if a Muslim speaks about the People of the Book in a way that is disliked, he enters the Fire. What is the evidence? .
The student : Ah, ah, yes.

The Shaykh : And this hadith, what did you read for it at that time?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : It is missing.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : The original of the hadith is: , . That is the original of the hadith.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : That is, this hadith.
The student : How much is missing from it?

The Shaykh : What is missing from it, and what has changed the meaning? Abu al-Harith, may Allah reward him with good, had found words in this book by al-Sakhawi. Al-Sakhawi refers to this abbreviation. So the first thing he said to me about the hadith—I was the one who had traced the hadith—I heard this conversation between me and him.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Look, I wrote here a note: "Strange errors have occurred."
The student : ... Oh my Shaykh, may Allah honor you.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student : We copied this in al-Mawarid, this one.

The Shaykh : Hmm.
The student : We copied it in al-Mawarid.

The Shaykh : That is, I said to Abu al-Harith, no.

The questioner : I heard ... then ... something appeared.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student : Please, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : You have a hadith in the book al-Ihsan, which is the arrangement of Sahih Ibn Hibban. It is narrated with a very abbreviated wording that corrupted the meaning, where it came with the wording . This hadith with this wording has no basis in any of the books of the Sunnah at all, except that it occurred this way in the book Sahih Ibn Hibban, and consequently in its arrangement al-Ihsan. So when I reached this hadith in al-Ihsan and found it with this abbreviation first, and then found it from the route of Abu Musa second, and the original of the hadith is in Sahih Muslim from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, complete with the correct meaning, which is approximately . This is the correct wording. So it occurred for Ibn Hibban as very abbreviated and defective, indeed corrupting the meaning with the wording: . And he titled it with his saying: "Mention of the obligation of entering the Fire for one who makes the People of the Book hear what they dislike." And this title has no basis in the Shari'ah. And this is a natural matter because it was built upon a hadith that is very abbreviated and has no basis in the authentic hadiths. So I traced this hadith in "Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah" from the hadith of Abu Musa from one side, and I clarified the difference in the narrators' connection and narration from Abu Musa. And in any case, with this difference, it is from the route of Sa'id ibn Jubayr from Abu Musa. And Sa'id ibn Jubayr did not hear from Abu Musa. So there are two defects in the hadith: a defect in the text, which is the corrupting abbreviation, and the other defect is in the chain, which is the disconnection between Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Abu Musa. I clarified all of this in "Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah." After I finished the tracing, I said, the text of which is: "Note: Strange errors have occurred regarding this hadith, and it is good to mention them. First, al-Hakim attributed it to 'Sahih Muslim' from Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, and he was followed by..."Al-Halabi : ... in their abridgments. And al-Sabuni added to his two predecessors, and said in the footnote: "Muslim narrated it from Abu Musa al-Ash'ari." And this has no basis. So al-Sabuni misled the readers, as is his habit, that his tracing is from his own knowledge, presumptuously claiming what he was not given. First, then he fell into error through his ignorance by imitating others. Second, then he added a bundle to a camel's load by making this tracing from him in place of the saying of Ibn Kathir, "And in 'Sahih Muslim'," although he, meaning al-Sabuni, had abbreviated this statement in the text by saying "In the Sahih." So this is what is fitting for the abridger. As for the footnote, meaning in the original, they left it as "In the Sahih." So this is what is fitting for the abridger. And as for the footnote, it is undoubtedly from presumptuousness. And if it were correct, how could it be, when it is wrong? Because Muslim did not narrate it from Abu Musa. O Allah, guide him. And if he had been among the people of knowledge of tracing, his footnote would have been a warning about this error and a clarification that the correct thing is that Muslim only narrated it from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, as mentioned before. Second, and contrary to that, al-Haythami mentioned the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in "Majma' al-Zawa'id," part such-and-such, page such-and-such, with the narration of Ahmad. And that is not a condition of his book because it is in "Sahih Muslim." And he claimed that its wording is not the wording of Ahmad, and that is an error. Third, and contrary to that, al-Suyuti limited himself in "al-Durr al-Manthur" in attributing the hadith of Abu Hurayrah to Ibn Mardawayh only. He said: "Ibn Mardawayh narrated it," and it is narrated by Muslim, although he attributed it in the two collections to Ahmad and Muslim. Fourth, the comment on the hadith of Abu Musa in al-Ihsan, printed by the institution: "Its chain is authentic according to the condition of the two Shaykhs."
The student : This has a disconnection.

The Shaykh : Yes, it has a disconnection. So he was unaware of the disconnection between Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Abu Musa, as previously explained. And he fell into another unawareness, which is perhaps stranger than the first, and that is that he did not notice the omission that occurred in the text of his hadith, which corrupted the meaning, as I hinted at. So that led him to interpret the hadith with a false interpretation. He said, part such-and-such, page such-and-such: "And his saying 'Whoever makes hear' is said: I made hear of the man, tasmia' and tasmii'ah, if I publicized him and slandered him." So this is false in narration, language, and Shari'ah. First, as for the narration, it is apparent from the text of the hadith above, and its wording at Ahmad and others from the route of Shu'bah, which is in Ibn Hibban: . This is from the aspect of narration. Second, as for the language, he interpreted it by saying: "And his saying 'Whoever makes hear' is said: I made hear of the man, tasmia' and tasmii'ah, if I publicized him and slandered him." I say: So this meaning is an error because it does not meet the wording of the hadith that occurred for him: or . And it is not with the wording "Whoever makes hear of a Jew." Do you understand?
The student: Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Because the language is "Whoever makes hear of so-and-so."
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : The hadith is "Whoever hears of a Jew."
The student : It is specified, meaning.

The Shaykh : Ah, and it is not with the wording "Whoever makes hear of a Jew." And the difference between the two expressions is great, as is apparent. Third, then the meaning of the slander mentioned in his interpretation is only an allusion to exposing the Jew and publicizing his faults. Is this the cause of entering the Fire mentioned in the hadith? O Allah, guide him. And after this, regarding this hadith, our brothers have some strange things, praise be to Allah, because we said here: "Note: Strange errors have occurred regarding this hadith, and it is good to mention them." First, second, third, and fourth. And then we reached the printing of the institution, and this is your knowledge, he says: "Its chain is authentic according to the condition of the two Shaykhs." So I said: He was unaware of its disconnection, because it is disconnected between Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Abu Musa, and so on. Give me what you have. Yes, yes, ah, yes. In "Musnad Ahmad." Yes, yes. And from here I corrected it there when I read to you. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Please. So he was unaware of the disconnection between Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Abu Musa, as previously explained. And he fell into another unawareness, and perhaps it is stranger than the first, and that is that he did not notice the omission that occurred in the text of his hadith, which corrupted the meaning, as I hinted at. So that led him to interpret the hadith with a false interpretation. He said: "And his saying 'Whoever makes hear' is said: I heard of the man, tasmia' and I heard of him, if I publicized him and slandered him." Or "I publicized him and slandered him." So this is false in narration, language, and Shari'ah. As for the narration, it is apparent from the text of the hadith above, and its wording at Ahmad and others from the route of Shu'bah, which is in Ibn Hibban: . And as for the language, he interpreted it by saying: "Whoever makes hear is said: I heard of the man," and so on. I say: So this meaning is an error because it does not meet the wording of the hadith that occurred for him: . Hello, are you with me? Of course. "Whoever makes hear of a Jew," and it is not with the wording "Whoever makes hear of a Jew." And the difference between the two expressions is great, as is apparent. Then the meaning of the slander mentioned, and so on. You know the completeness, meaning that it is not permissible to mention the Jew with his misguidance, his shirk, and so on, and publicizing his faults. Is this the cause of entering the Fire mentioned in the hadith? So O Allah, guide you, and so on.
The student : Even the Companions used to talk about the Jews. So this ...

The Shaykh : Please, yes, my brother. Now and before now, it is completely clear from its title. That is, you want it to be mentioned here. Let's see, yes. Your understanding is correct, but I have to read to the end of the research because it is six pages. So if you reward me with good, please. And write it, my brother, and may Allah reward you with good, and thank you. Welcome. Welcome. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The student : My Shaykh ... we reached here.