The Shaykh's remarks on al-Bukhari's and Ibn Rajab's (may Allah have mercy on both of them) condition of meeting between the narrator and the one from whom he narrated in accepting a hadith.

The questioner: O Shaykh, now Ibn Rajab - may Allah have mercy on him - means he opposed this issue, and he adopted the methodology of the early scholars like al-Bukhari and 'Ali ibn al-Madini.

The Shaykh: He did not oppose this.

The questioner: That is sufficient, O Shaykh, he mentioned this book.

The Shaykh: No, he did not oppose it, you are mistaken now.

The questioner: Okay; I read it, O Shaykh, and I found that he opposed it.

The Shaykh: O Shaykh, I am telling you.

The questioner: : Go ahead.

The Shaykh: Ibn Rajab agreed with al-Bukhari.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Al-Bukhari did not say: "It is not necessary that the establishment of the meeting implies the non-establishment of hearing," rather he conditioned that whoever narrates from a shaykh in a form that does not explicitly state hearing must have established that he met this shaykh; this is what al-Bukhari said, and this is what Ibn Rajab said or chose, whereas you are now saying: does the establishment of the meeting imply the establishment of hearing?; meaning, in any hadith where a man narrates from a shaykh of his, and it is established that he met him, does it imply that in this hadith he heard it from this shaykh, that he heard this hadith? We told you: it is not necessary, but it serves as proof. I am now returning to the opinion of the majority and the opinion of Imam Muslim, contrary to al-Bukhari, that it is not necessary for the meeting to be established as long as this narrator who narrated from his shaykh in a form that does not establish the meeting is not a deceiver (mudallis) and is a contemporary of him. Ibn Rajab chose al-Bukhari's school; so what do you want to show me?

The questioner: But here, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh: If a narrator narrates from a shaykh who is a contemporary of his, and it has not been established that he met him; then it is attributed to disconnection, and the majority are satisfied with contemporaneity, so this is you understanding it one way and not the other?

The questioner: You understand it one way and not the other.

The Shaykh : And what is it?

The questioner: That it is necessary, meaning, like, meaning... that the narrator, that he narrated this hadith; he mentioned the hadith, it is necessary, meaning.

The Shaykh: Even if he is not a deceiver (mudallis)?

Another questioner: The answer, mention what you understand... mention what... what is in your mind now.

The Shaykh: Even if he is not a deceiver (mudallis)?

The questioner: No, if he is a deceiver (mudallis) it is necessary, if he is not a deceiver (mudallis) yes.

The Shaykh: If he is not a deceiver (mudallis)?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh: And what am I saying?

The questioner: But for example.

Another questioner: Peace be upon you.

Those present : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

The Shaykh: ... the same remains in terms of principles; one, two, three, do you not say that al-Bukhari conditions the establishment of the meeting between the narrator and the one from whom he narrated?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: And I say yes, okay?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Okay; and that Imam Muslim is satisfied with contemporaneity?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: And that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar is with al-Bukhari?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: And I say: Yes. Okay; what remains? It is the last question: does al-Bukhari condition that if a narrator narrates from one with whom it is established that he met him, if he narrates a hadith from him using the "an" (from) without explicitly stating the narration, that he does not accept this narration?

The questioner: Yes, he accepts it.

The Shaykh: Okay; this is what I have been telling you since an hour ago.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.