The Response to Those Who Ruled on the Disruption of the Hadith Prohibiting Fasting on Saturday
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Now you say: The hadith is from Abdullah by Busr, or from his sister Hafsah, right?
The Shaykh : No, not Hafsah, al-Sammah.
The questioner : Al-Sammah, excuse me.
The Shaykh : I am telling you something: In the science of hadith, there is a type of disruption where a reliable man is named in all the chains, but in some chains he is named Zayd, and in another chain he is named Bakr. What is this called? It is called disrupted. But the hadith scholars who have understanding of hadith terminology look to see if both Bakr and Zayd are trustworthy, or if one is trustworthy and the other is weak. If that is the case, the answer was already given in the previous example: Sa'id from a man from Abu Hurayrah, Sa'id from Abu Hurayrah, clear? So here the same subject is studied. If one is trustworthy and the other is weak, we see if we can prefer one or not. If it is not possible, then it is truly disrupted and becomes weak. If it is possible, we look to see if the preferred one is from the path of the weak one or from the path of the trustworthy one? Now I say: We studied the two men, Zayd and Bakr, for example, and if each of them is trustworthy, what do the scholars say? They say: This disruption does not harm it; because it is a transition from a trustworthy person to a trustworthy person. So whether this narration was originally from this narrator, saying from Zayd or saying from Bakr, it is not important; because this one is trustworthy and this one is trustworthy. So this is a disruption that does not harm it, is this example clear?
We return now to our hadith; our hadith, as I recall, is narrated in several ways. One of them is from Abdullah ibn Busr who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say. Another is from Abdullah ibn Busr from his sister al-Sammah that she heard the Messenger of Allah. They said: This is disrupted. We say: This is a Companion and this is a female Companion, so whether the hadith is from Busr directly from the Messenger of Allah, or the hadith is from Abdullah ibn Busr from his sister al-Sammah from the Messenger of Allah; "all roads lead to the mill," meaning this one is trustworthy and this one is trustworthy. Also, there is another aspect here, and it is often said, as well, in the previous case of Zayd and Bakr: If a narration is in Zayd and Bakr, sometimes he says: I heard Zayd, and sometimes he says: I heard Bakr, he says: There is no contradiction, he has two sheikhs in this narration, so sometimes he narrates it from the first sheikh, and sometimes he narrates it from the other sheikh; so there is no disruption in the hadith.
We return now and say: It is possible that Abdullah ibn Busr heard the hadith first from his sister al-Sammah, then it was granted to him to hear the hadith directly from the Messenger of Allah; so sometimes he narrates the hadith as he heard it from his sister, and sometimes he narrates the hadith as he heard it from his Prophet, so sometimes he says from his sister al-Sammah, and sometimes he says from the Messenger of Allah; there is no disruption at all. And therefore, those who criticize the hadith with disruption, I say honestly that they looked at it quickly like this, they do not do what we are forced to do today, meaning that we have to do. And here I say as is said in the old proverb: "Every harm has a benefit." Our misfortune today is that if we have from the people of knowledge or the preservers of hadith or those engaged with hadith, we have no memorization except what Allah wills, we have reliance on sources and returning to them, and by Allah this has a defect and a benefit. The benefit is that the one who doubts his memorization is forced to return to his sources, when he returns to his sources, his distance from error is greater than that of the one who relied on his memorization. And therefore we find that in the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and others of the preservers, they fall into strange errors, and the reason is that they rely on their memorization, and they have the right to... for two reasons; the first: that they were truly preservers, a very strange memorization, meaning, we do not find its like in the present age. Second: if they wanted to do as we do, they would not have produced a fruit... ... .
The Shaykh : No, not Hafsah, al-Sammah.
The questioner : Al-Sammah, excuse me.
The Shaykh : I am telling you something: In the science of hadith, there is a type of disruption where a reliable man is named in all the chains, but in some chains he is named Zayd, and in another chain he is named Bakr. What is this called? It is called disrupted. But the hadith scholars who have understanding of hadith terminology look to see if both Bakr and Zayd are trustworthy, or if one is trustworthy and the other is weak. If that is the case, the answer was already given in the previous example: Sa'id from a man from Abu Hurayrah, Sa'id from Abu Hurayrah, clear? So here the same subject is studied. If one is trustworthy and the other is weak, we see if we can prefer one or not. If it is not possible, then it is truly disrupted and becomes weak. If it is possible, we look to see if the preferred one is from the path of the weak one or from the path of the trustworthy one? Now I say: We studied the two men, Zayd and Bakr, for example, and if each of them is trustworthy, what do the scholars say? They say: This disruption does not harm it; because it is a transition from a trustworthy person to a trustworthy person. So whether this narration was originally from this narrator, saying from Zayd or saying from Bakr, it is not important; because this one is trustworthy and this one is trustworthy. So this is a disruption that does not harm it, is this example clear?
We return now to our hadith; our hadith, as I recall, is narrated in several ways. One of them is from Abdullah ibn Busr who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say. Another is from Abdullah ibn Busr from his sister al-Sammah that she heard the Messenger of Allah. They said: This is disrupted. We say: This is a Companion and this is a female Companion, so whether the hadith is from Busr directly from the Messenger of Allah, or the hadith is from Abdullah ibn Busr from his sister al-Sammah from the Messenger of Allah; "all roads lead to the mill," meaning this one is trustworthy and this one is trustworthy. Also, there is another aspect here, and it is often said, as well, in the previous case of Zayd and Bakr: If a narration is in Zayd and Bakr, sometimes he says: I heard Zayd, and sometimes he says: I heard Bakr, he says: There is no contradiction, he has two sheikhs in this narration, so sometimes he narrates it from the first sheikh, and sometimes he narrates it from the other sheikh; so there is no disruption in the hadith.
We return now and say: It is possible that Abdullah ibn Busr heard the hadith first from his sister al-Sammah, then it was granted to him to hear the hadith directly from the Messenger of Allah; so sometimes he narrates the hadith as he heard it from his sister, and sometimes he narrates the hadith as he heard it from his Prophet, so sometimes he says from his sister al-Sammah, and sometimes he says from the Messenger of Allah; there is no disruption at all. And therefore, those who criticize the hadith with disruption, I say honestly that they looked at it quickly like this, they do not do what we are forced to do today, meaning that we have to do. And here I say as is said in the old proverb: "Every harm has a benefit." Our misfortune today is that if we have from the people of knowledge or the preservers of hadith or those engaged with hadith, we have no memorization except what Allah wills, we have reliance on sources and returning to them, and by Allah this has a defect and a benefit. The benefit is that the one who doubts his memorization is forced to return to his sources, when he returns to his sources, his distance from error is greater than that of the one who relied on his memorization. And therefore we find that in the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and others of the preservers, they fall into strange errors, and the reason is that they rely on their memorization, and they have the right to... for two reasons; the first: that they were truly preservers, a very strange memorization, meaning, we do not find its like in the present age. Second: if they wanted to do as we do, they would not have produced a fruit... ... .
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.