Now, our professor, regarding the issue of Ibn Jurayj’s *'ana'ana* from Ata.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Al-Halabi: Now, our professor, regarding the issue of Ibn Jurayj’s *'ana'ana* from Ata.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: "From" and "said," professor, you do not distinguish between them, meaning you do not distinguish, meaning in more than one place you say, "Does 'from' have the same ruling as 'said'?" And what is established for me is this. Is there a difference in this form regarding al-Nakha'i?
The Shaykh : The difference may be due to our lack of knowledge of the details concerning Ibn Jarir’s statement, such as the details transmitted regarding al-Nakha'i.
Al-Halabi: Fine, correct, that is right.
The Shaykh : This is clarified and detailed, so the soul is reassured by the distinction between the two matters. As for there, regarding what is narrated from Ibn Jurayj, the truth is I do not remember and I do not know if the narration is authentic. Do you remember who narrated this?
Al-Halabi: From Ibn Jurayj?
The Shaykh : Ah.
Al-Halabi: I think it is authentic, from Ibn Abi Khaythama.
The Shaykh : Ibn Abi Khaythama narrates from Ibn Jurayj that he said.
Al-Halabi: "If I say 'Ata said,' then I heard it from him."
The Shaykh : Fine, but there is nothing on the other side.
Al-Halabi: There is nothing on the other side.
The Shaykh : Here is the problem.
Al-Halabi: Here is the problem, especially for the one who holds this distinction, my teacher... In the *Mawqifa* in the modern scientific treatise... it says the ruling of "said" is the ruling of "from."
The Shaykh : Yes, this is the rule.
Al-Halabi: Yes, this is the rule here, meaning the explicit statement of hearing.
The Shaykh : That is it.
Al-Halabi: Or the specification, or reading it to him in the chapter.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is the rule, and the principle, as is not hidden from you, is that we adhere to the rules unless something comes that specifies them. So, regarding al-Nakha'i, there is a specification, and it is not so regarding Ibn Jurayj.
Al-Halabi: Yes, correct. Our brother Nizam told us about his brother Sa'id’s treatise, or have you not seen it now?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: I have a copy of it.
The Shaykh : This, my sir, is filled with hatred. In fact, when you read his book, you feel completely that this is a person who has made it his habit, like Al-Albani’s habit.
Al-Halabi: He is so...
The Shaykh : Yes, so one who follows Al-Albani in his errors, in his opinion, may not have missed a single one for himself. But, glory to Allah, these are people of desires; they do not benefit others and they harm themselves, because benefit, as is known to everyone, comes from being free from following desires.
The questioner : Who is Rashid?
The Shaykh : No, no, you know his identity; he is Egyptian.
Al-Halabi: Of course... and he is from the Ismailis, and he has a farm in Ismailia, and I met him in the last days of my trip, and he is there, and he is an agricultural engineer.
The Shaykh : In Ismailia, did you say, or where?
Al-Halabi: Yes, in Ismailia.
The Shaykh : What is in my mind is that he is like a student of Ali al-Ghamari.
Al-Halabi: Of course, he is a student of al-Ghamari, and a student of Abu Ghuddah, and a student of all this group.
The Shaykh : No problem, but we have something regarding proofs, or...
Al-Halabi: I have proofs that he is a student of al-Ghamari. He has a book called "Fath al-Aziz bi Asanid 'Abd al-Aziz", which is al-Ghamari’s, and he has another book called "Iktishaf al-Rahiq bi Asanid Sayyid 'Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq", and he mentions the shaykhs and so on.
The Shaykh : This is what is in my mind, that he is al-Ghamari. The point is a hadith I mentioned in *Adab al-Zafaf*... disclosing the secret of the spouses.
Al-Halabi: Yes, yes, the hadith is in Sahih Muslim.
The Shaykh : The hadith is in Sahih Muslim; he worked on it for pages. Yes, and he took the biography of 'Umar ibn Hamza and read at the end that he is trustworthy and relied upon. He worked on an introduction, and I think he is the first to reject it, because it is not conceivable that a person seeking knowledge who has smelled the scent of hadith science would explicitly say that everything in the two Sahihs is authentic, and most of it provides certainty, and a little of it provides preponderance of probability. And it is not permissible, yes, to critique the two Sahihs from the aspect of chains, because it is a matter of what? ... It is most like the issue of following a scholar without knowing his evidence and independent legal reasoning. How, for example, in Islamic jurisprudence, the door of independent legal reasoning was closed like this? But who says this? And I used to wonder if this man is a poor soul if he is criticizing Al-Albani from this angle, because I criticized some hadiths of Muslim. Fine, the al-Ghamaris are more exposed than me in this aspect, and he is a student of them. Do you think he is sincere in refuting Al-Albani? No, by Allah, this is impossible. I compared him to Abu Ghuddah. Abu Ghuddah, that wicked one, took issue with my terminology that I used in tracing the *'Aqidah al-Tahawi*. "Authentic, al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated it," "Authentic, Muslim narrated it," and so on. He said this means that the hadith is not authentic unless... And he also took issue with me, as you remember, or help me remember, because the time is far, that I stopped authenticating "And My servant keeps drawing near to Me with voluntary acts", even though it is in Sahih al-Bukhari.
Al-Halabi: A very long speech.
The Shaykh : Yes, my intention is that I mentioned this speech... I wish I had weakened it so that he would have an argument. I did not stop authenticating it because of so-and-so, so he came and exploited this point. Then I came in the introduction, as you know, and you are criticizing me on this point. Your shaykh, this al-Kawthari, whom you are proud to be affiliated with to the extent that you take the name al-Kawthari, denied hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim. I listed types of these hadiths. I found this man is exactly like his brother in misguidance. The last thing that came out of me regarding the jurisprudence of the Sunnah, complete grace, this al-Ghamari, 'Abd Allah the wicked, has a treatise called *al-Sabah al-Satir*.
Al-Halabi: *Al-Sabah al-Satir* regarding the prayer of the traveler.
The Shaykh : Yes, he denied a hadith. First, we do not know who preceded him. Second, he did not rely on a scientific hadith rule. It is the hadith of 'Urwah from 'Aisha, she said:, he said this hadith is weak and anomalous. And how did he prove its anomaly? Like, as you know, the people of innovation cling to even the moon’s shadow. He brings you a narration from here and a narration from here and a narration from here. Among the narrations he brought in this treatise, and among his wicked concealment, he says: "Ishaq ibn Rahawayh narrated in his Musnad with a chain meeting the conditions of the two Shaykhs, from Abu Bakr ibn 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn Hazm, from 'Aisha, that when the prayer was made obligatory, Jibril (peace be upon him) came down and prayed with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) the dawn prayer in two units, then he prayed the midday prayer in four, then the afternoon prayer in four." He builds on this that the prayer was made obligatory in fours and fours.
Al-Halabi: Glory to Allah.
The Shaykh : Do you understand how?
Al-Halabi: Clear.
The Shaykh : Yes, and he brought other hadiths. It is evident that one is a report missing the Companion link and has no value. And he brought two hadiths from the route of al-Hasan al-Basri, considering them two hadiths because he numbered them serially, but it is one hadith, but from one route with such wording and from another route with such wording, and he gave them two numbers. So the number is four, he made them five because he made the reports missing the Companion link from al-Hasan al-Basri two, and it is one. Yes, with these hadiths, all of which are defective, he demolished the hadith of 'Urwah and built on that that the prayer was made obligatory in fours and fours. And therefore, the statement that the prayer of the traveler is two units, and they are obligatory, is an error. And the strange thing is that he refuted in this treatise the treatise of his brother al-Zamzami, Muhammad. Look, these al-Ghamaris are people of desires. This one demolished another hadith from Sahih Muslim without any proof. It is the one where a man, I forgot his name now, asked Ibn 'Abbas in Mecca: "If we pray behind you, do we complete it, and if we pray alone, do we shorten it?" He said: "It is the Sunnah of your Prophet." This same hadith, al-Zamzami, because he believes that it is obligatory to pray two units, whether one prays alone or with the imam, this is a refutation of it explicitly. So he said this is weak. Who is this? Muhammad al-Zamzami, his brother 'Abd Allah refuted him and proved the hadith, and it is the truth, but he demolished the hadith.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: "From" and "said," professor, you do not distinguish between them, meaning you do not distinguish, meaning in more than one place you say, "Does 'from' have the same ruling as 'said'?" And what is established for me is this. Is there a difference in this form regarding al-Nakha'i?
The Shaykh : The difference may be due to our lack of knowledge of the details concerning Ibn Jarir’s statement, such as the details transmitted regarding al-Nakha'i.
Al-Halabi: Fine, correct, that is right.
The Shaykh : This is clarified and detailed, so the soul is reassured by the distinction between the two matters. As for there, regarding what is narrated from Ibn Jurayj, the truth is I do not remember and I do not know if the narration is authentic. Do you remember who narrated this?
Al-Halabi: From Ibn Jurayj?
The Shaykh : Ah.
Al-Halabi: I think it is authentic, from Ibn Abi Khaythama.
The Shaykh : Ibn Abi Khaythama narrates from Ibn Jurayj that he said.
Al-Halabi: "If I say 'Ata said,' then I heard it from him."
The Shaykh : Fine, but there is nothing on the other side.
Al-Halabi: There is nothing on the other side.
The Shaykh : Here is the problem.
Al-Halabi: Here is the problem, especially for the one who holds this distinction, my teacher... In the *Mawqifa* in the modern scientific treatise... it says the ruling of "said" is the ruling of "from."
The Shaykh : Yes, this is the rule.
Al-Halabi: Yes, this is the rule here, meaning the explicit statement of hearing.
The Shaykh : That is it.
Al-Halabi: Or the specification, or reading it to him in the chapter.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is the rule, and the principle, as is not hidden from you, is that we adhere to the rules unless something comes that specifies them. So, regarding al-Nakha'i, there is a specification, and it is not so regarding Ibn Jurayj.
Al-Halabi: Yes, correct. Our brother Nizam told us about his brother Sa'id’s treatise, or have you not seen it now?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: I have a copy of it.
The Shaykh : This, my sir, is filled with hatred. In fact, when you read his book, you feel completely that this is a person who has made it his habit, like Al-Albani’s habit.
Al-Halabi: He is so...
The Shaykh : Yes, so one who follows Al-Albani in his errors, in his opinion, may not have missed a single one for himself. But, glory to Allah, these are people of desires; they do not benefit others and they harm themselves, because benefit, as is known to everyone, comes from being free from following desires.
The questioner : Who is Rashid?
The Shaykh : No, no, you know his identity; he is Egyptian.
Al-Halabi: Of course... and he is from the Ismailis, and he has a farm in Ismailia, and I met him in the last days of my trip, and he is there, and he is an agricultural engineer.
The Shaykh : In Ismailia, did you say, or where?
Al-Halabi: Yes, in Ismailia.
The Shaykh : What is in my mind is that he is like a student of Ali al-Ghamari.
Al-Halabi: Of course, he is a student of al-Ghamari, and a student of Abu Ghuddah, and a student of all this group.
The Shaykh : No problem, but we have something regarding proofs, or...
Al-Halabi: I have proofs that he is a student of al-Ghamari. He has a book called "Fath al-Aziz bi Asanid 'Abd al-Aziz", which is al-Ghamari’s, and he has another book called "Iktishaf al-Rahiq bi Asanid Sayyid 'Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq", and he mentions the shaykhs and so on.
The Shaykh : This is what is in my mind, that he is al-Ghamari. The point is a hadith I mentioned in *Adab al-Zafaf*... disclosing the secret of the spouses.
Al-Halabi: Yes, yes, the hadith is in Sahih Muslim.
The Shaykh : The hadith is in Sahih Muslim; he worked on it for pages. Yes, and he took the biography of 'Umar ibn Hamza and read at the end that he is trustworthy and relied upon. He worked on an introduction, and I think he is the first to reject it, because it is not conceivable that a person seeking knowledge who has smelled the scent of hadith science would explicitly say that everything in the two Sahihs is authentic, and most of it provides certainty, and a little of it provides preponderance of probability. And it is not permissible, yes, to critique the two Sahihs from the aspect of chains, because it is a matter of what? ... It is most like the issue of following a scholar without knowing his evidence and independent legal reasoning. How, for example, in Islamic jurisprudence, the door of independent legal reasoning was closed like this? But who says this? And I used to wonder if this man is a poor soul if he is criticizing Al-Albani from this angle, because I criticized some hadiths of Muslim. Fine, the al-Ghamaris are more exposed than me in this aspect, and he is a student of them. Do you think he is sincere in refuting Al-Albani? No, by Allah, this is impossible. I compared him to Abu Ghuddah. Abu Ghuddah, that wicked one, took issue with my terminology that I used in tracing the *'Aqidah al-Tahawi*. "Authentic, al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated it," "Authentic, Muslim narrated it," and so on. He said this means that the hadith is not authentic unless... And he also took issue with me, as you remember, or help me remember, because the time is far, that I stopped authenticating "And My servant keeps drawing near to Me with voluntary acts", even though it is in Sahih al-Bukhari.
Al-Halabi: A very long speech.
The Shaykh : Yes, my intention is that I mentioned this speech... I wish I had weakened it so that he would have an argument. I did not stop authenticating it because of so-and-so, so he came and exploited this point. Then I came in the introduction, as you know, and you are criticizing me on this point. Your shaykh, this al-Kawthari, whom you are proud to be affiliated with to the extent that you take the name al-Kawthari, denied hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim. I listed types of these hadiths. I found this man is exactly like his brother in misguidance. The last thing that came out of me regarding the jurisprudence of the Sunnah, complete grace, this al-Ghamari, 'Abd Allah the wicked, has a treatise called *al-Sabah al-Satir*.
Al-Halabi: *Al-Sabah al-Satir* regarding the prayer of the traveler.
The Shaykh : Yes, he denied a hadith. First, we do not know who preceded him. Second, he did not rely on a scientific hadith rule. It is the hadith of 'Urwah from 'Aisha, she said:
The prayer was made obligatory in two units, two units, and it was left as is in travel and increased in residence.
فرضت الصلاة ركعتين ركعتين فأقرت في السفر وزيدت في الحضرAl-Halabi: Glory to Allah.
The Shaykh : Do you understand how?
Al-Halabi: Clear.
The Shaykh : Yes, and he brought other hadiths. It is evident that one is a report missing the Companion link and has no value. And he brought two hadiths from the route of al-Hasan al-Basri, considering them two hadiths because he numbered them serially, but it is one hadith, but from one route with such wording and from another route with such wording, and he gave them two numbers. So the number is four, he made them five because he made the reports missing the Companion link from al-Hasan al-Basri two, and it is one. Yes, with these hadiths, all of which are defective, he demolished the hadith of 'Urwah and built on that that the prayer was made obligatory in fours and fours. And therefore, the statement that the prayer of the traveler is two units, and they are obligatory, is an error. And the strange thing is that he refuted in this treatise the treatise of his brother al-Zamzami, Muhammad. Look, these al-Ghamaris are people of desires. This one demolished another hadith from Sahih Muslim without any proof. It is the one where a man, I forgot his name now, asked Ibn 'Abbas in Mecca: "If we pray behind you, do we complete it, and if we pray alone, do we shorten it?" He said: "It is the Sunnah of your Prophet." This same hadith, al-Zamzami, because he believes that it is obligatory to pray two units, whether one prays alone or with the imam, this is a refutation of it explicitly. So he said this is weak. Who is this? Muhammad al-Zamzami, his brother 'Abd Allah refuted him and proved the hadith, and it is the truth, but he demolished the hadith.