You said, O Shaykh, in *Sahih al-Jami'* number one: "In the hadith, Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) was approached by a man who said to him, 'I love you for the sake of Allah,' and he said to him..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : We have a hadith in *Sahih al-Jami'* number one... which you are about to print now. I said, O Shaykh, in the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), a man came to him and said, "I love you for the sake of Allah," and he said to him, "I hate you." He asked why, and he said, "Because you make mistakes in the adhan." So I said, O Shaykh, in the introduction: "And it is authentic." What did you find regarding Yahya ibn Muslim al-Bakka?
The Shaykh : What did you find?
The questioner : I mean, where did you find it? I said it is authentic without reference to other sources. I think I found Yahya ibn Muslim al-Bakka in its chain, and you have weakened him. Is he weak?
The Shaykh : But this Yahya al-Bakka: you must look at the narrator who narrated from him, because the ruling on a man can sometimes differ depending on the narrator who narrated from him. Now, I am far from this knowledge, but since you say you returned to the chain, it is part of a complete review to look at who the narrator from Yahya al-Bakka is. This is because, as I told you, sometimes a narrator is weak except in the narration of certain narrators from him, in which case he is trustworthy and his hadith is authentic. There are many examples of this. For instance, 'Abdullah ibn Lahi'ah, who was a judge in Egypt: if he narrates a hadith, it is weak, but if al-'Abbadalah—'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, 'Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Misri, and 'Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Muqri—narrate from him, or also Qutaybah ibn Sa'id al-Misri, then if any of these narrate from 'Abdullah ibn Lahi'ah, his hadith is authentic. Similarly, for example, a man among the men of al-Bukhari named 'Ata' ibn al-Sa'ib: he is trustworthy in himself, but he became confused in the last part of his life. The hadith scholars say that whoever narrated from him before his confusion, his hadith is authentic. It is known that among those who narrated from him before his confusion are individual narrators, the memorizers among them, such as Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaj and Sufyan ibn al-Muthanna al-Thawri. So this al-Bakka seems to me to be of this type. And I think this athar is attributed to Abu Dawud. Do you remember?
The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, in this same athar that al-Bakka mentioned, al-Hafiz said it is weak, and al-Nasa'i said he is abandoned. And Ibn Hazm narrated three hundred and twenty-seven in the issue, and al-Tabarani in *al-Mujam* two, number six, and *al-Mizan*?
The Shaykh : This is my statement!
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Ah, you mean you will publish it in any case. Call me by phone if you wish after 'Isha', and I will review it, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : What did you find?
The questioner : I mean, where did you find it? I said it is authentic without reference to other sources. I think I found Yahya ibn Muslim al-Bakka in its chain, and you have weakened him. Is he weak?
The Shaykh : But this Yahya al-Bakka: you must look at the narrator who narrated from him, because the ruling on a man can sometimes differ depending on the narrator who narrated from him. Now, I am far from this knowledge, but since you say you returned to the chain, it is part of a complete review to look at who the narrator from Yahya al-Bakka is. This is because, as I told you, sometimes a narrator is weak except in the narration of certain narrators from him, in which case he is trustworthy and his hadith is authentic. There are many examples of this. For instance, 'Abdullah ibn Lahi'ah, who was a judge in Egypt: if he narrates a hadith, it is weak, but if al-'Abbadalah—'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, 'Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Misri, and 'Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Muqri—narrate from him, or also Qutaybah ibn Sa'id al-Misri, then if any of these narrate from 'Abdullah ibn Lahi'ah, his hadith is authentic. Similarly, for example, a man among the men of al-Bukhari named 'Ata' ibn al-Sa'ib: he is trustworthy in himself, but he became confused in the last part of his life. The hadith scholars say that whoever narrated from him before his confusion, his hadith is authentic. It is known that among those who narrated from him before his confusion are individual narrators, the memorizers among them, such as Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaj and Sufyan ibn al-Muthanna al-Thawri. So this al-Bakka seems to me to be of this type. And I think this athar is attributed to Abu Dawud. Do you remember?
The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, in this same athar that al-Bakka mentioned, al-Hafiz said it is weak, and al-Nasa'i said he is abandoned. And Ibn Hazm narrated three hundred and twenty-seven in the issue, and al-Tabarani in *al-Mujam* two, number six, and *al-Mizan*?
The Shaykh : This is my statement!
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Ah, you mean you will publish it in any case. Call me by phone if you wish after 'Isha', and I will review it, if Allah wills.