Miscellaneous by Al-Albani-058

The Shaykh : Therefore, the author "Ibn Hajar" (may Allah have mercy on him) followed the previous hadith with a second one, which is his statement: "And about 'Amir ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said . Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration, and the five [books] connected it, and Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban graded it as authentic." Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration. Perhaps many of you know the point behind this qualification in his statement "Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration." Usually, he says "Al-Bukhari narrated it," "Muslim narrated it," or "It is agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim," as you heard in the first hadith. Here, we hear him say "Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration." The reason for this is that the hadiths of Imam al-Bukhari in his *Sahih* are divided into two categories, and the first category is further divided into two categories.
The first two categories are marfu' hadiths and mawquf hadiths. In *Sahih al-Bukhari*, the hadiths mentioned in it are of two types.
Marfu' hadiths traced to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and the other category is mawquf hadiths stopping at the Companions or those below them.
The first category, which is specific to marfu' hadiths, is divided into two categories: musnad hadiths and mu'allaq hadiths.
Musnad hadiths are those which Imam al-Bukhari presents with his connected chain of narration up to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is the category intended in the statements of scholars when they say that *Sahih al-Bukhari* is the most authentic book after the Noble Qur'an, or as some precise in expression put it, the most authentic thing compiled in hadith.
The intended meaning of this statement is not absolute; rather, it refers to this first category, which is the musnad hadiths that the author al-Bukhari presents with his connected chains of narration up to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
As for the other category, it is the mu'allaq hadiths. The mu'allaq hadiths in *Sahih al-Bukhari* are also divided into two categories regarding their authenticity: authentic and weak.
The mu'allaq hadiths in *Sahih al-Bukhari* are divided into two categories in terms of authenticity: authentic and weak. Therefore, it is not correct for us to understand the statement we read in the depths of the books that "the book of al-Bukhari is the most authentic thing compiled" in an absolute sense. Rather, this is understood with regard to the first category, which is the hadiths that al-Bukhari connected from himself to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This specific category is the most authentic of the hadiths collected in a book. As for the second category, which is the mu'allaq hadiths, it contains both authentic and weak ones.
What is the difference? How can we distinguish between the first category and the second category of al-Bukhari's hadiths? The distinction is made by looking at the form in which al-Bukhari mentions the hadith. If he begins by saying "So-and-so narrated to me," and then presents the chain from himself to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), this means that this hadith is from the first category.
And if he mentions it without a complete chain, at least, for example, saying "The Messenger of Allah said," then he has not presented the chain from himself to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This is from the second category, i.e., the category of mu'allaq hadiths in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. Or he might say, for example, "Abu Hurayrah said, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said." And so the examples multiply according to the number of intermediaries between al-Bukhari and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), until sometimes he mentions the hadith as suspended on one of al-Bukhari's shaykhs. Al-Bukhari mentions the hadith as suspended on one of his shaykhs. Here, the matter becomes confusing for one who does not pay attention to *Sahih al-Bukhari*, and he thinks that this hadith is from the first category, the musnad, because he began the chain from one of his shaykhs. But here, one must be alert to the following point: if al-Bukhari says "So-and-so said," and he is one of his shaykhs, the scholars differed on whether this is attached to the first category, i.e., the musnad hadith, or attached to the second category, which is the mu'allaq hadith. Because if he says "So-and-so narrated to me," the possibility [of it being mu'allaq] is removed and the issue is resolved. But if he says "So-and-so said," here they differed. And due to this disagreement, some of the early scholars fell into an error and weakened a hadith from al-Bukhari's hadiths because al-Bukhari did not say "So-and-so narrated to me" when he suspended the hadith on his shaykh. This specific shaykh is Hisham ibn 'Amir. He said in the hadith condemning amusements to the end of the hadith. Al-Bukhari presented the hadith with his connected chain from himself to the Messenger of peace be upon him, except that when he began the chain from his shaykh, he did not say "So-and-so narrated to me" but rather said "So-and-so said." And this expression "Hisham said" takes the form of suspension because, as we said earlier, how do we know the mu'allaq hadith from the musnad hadith? That he says "The Messenger of Allah said" without mentioning the chain, or he says "Abu Hurayrah said" without mentioning the chain to him, or he says "Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said." I mean, the forms multiply until this last form comes: "Hisham ibn 'Amir said," and he mentioned the chain: "So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so to Abu Malik al-Ash'ari, who is a well-known Companion, who said, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said,'" and he mentioned the hadith.
When Ibn Hazm came upon this hadith in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, he criticized it by saying it is mu'allaq. He criticized it by saying it is munqati' (disconnected) between al-Bukhari and Hisham ibn 'Amir. If it is said to him, "Hisham ibn 'Amir is one of al-Bukhari's shaykhs, so where is the disconnection?" He says, "Yes, he is one of al-Bukhari's shaykhs, but al-Bukhari usually, when he narrates from this shaykh, explicitly states the narration by saying 'Hisham ibn 'Amir narrated to me.' For some reason, he did not say 'Hisham ibn 'Amir narrated to me' in this specific hadith."
This statement is sound, but the later scholars said it is not necessary that the reason for al-Bukhari saying "Hisham said" instead of his usual "Hisham narrated to us" is that he did not hear this hadith from Hisham. Rather, the reason is that he narrated the hadith in a session of discussion and did not narrate the hadith in a session of formal narration. That is, al-Bukhari, like any teacher or hadith scholar, is either in a regular session where an occasion for a question or delivering a sermon arises, and he speaks without preparing for the lesson, whereas in a session of formal narration, he reviews his sources and books he has in preparation for delivering the lesson. So they say it is permissible that al-Bukhari did not say "Hisham ibn 'Amir narrated to me" here because he had not reviewed his sources, but rather said "Hisham said" out of caution and prudence.
The discussion around this specific hadith and proving that it is authentic is long, and we do not, of course, want to go too far afield from what we are dealing with. The purpose is that this specific hadith is classified by some scholars in the category of mu'allaq hadiths. But since the man on whom the hadith is suspended is one of al-Bukhari's shaykhs, this type of mu'allaq hadith is not classified in the second category, i.e., the mu'allaq hadiths that contain both authentic and weak ones. Because Hisham is known to be one of al-Bukhari's shaykhs. And if it is said that al-Bukhari did not hear this hadith from Hisham, as Ibn Hazm said, then a certain implication follows. And I want to ask those of our brothers who are engaged in this, in order to sharpen the mind: what is the implication? If it is said that al-Bukhari, when he suspended this hadith on Hisham ibn 'Amir, and it is assumed, as Ibn Hazm said, that he did not hear it from him, and he says "Hisham said," then from which category is the hadith?

The questioner : It would be weak in that case.

The Shaykh : What? It would be weak. That is a second issue. From which category?
Another questioner: From the mu'allaq.

The Shaykh : From the mu'allaq.

The questioner : Munqati'. Munqati' means there is a disconnection.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
Another questioner: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, this is the correct answer.

The questioner : Al-Bukhari's hadith ... .

The Shaykh : This is the correct answer, because tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) is when a narrator reports from someone he met what he did not hear from him. Al-Bukhari met Hisham and narrated many hadiths directly from him, as we mentioned. So, if we assume that Al-Bukhari did not hear this specific hadith from Hisham, and therefore, as Ibn Hazm says, he said "Hisham said," that would mean Al-Bukhari was a practitioner of tadlis. However, Imam Al-Bukhari is not known for tadlis, so it is not permissible to attribute tadlis to him. Therefore, we said earlier that the scholars mentioned another reason, which is that he had not reviewed the hadith to verify that he had heard it from him. But to intentionally narrate from a sheikh a hadith he did not hear from him means he is a practitioner of tadlis, and he is not known for that.
This is a discussion regarding the suspended hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari. Suspended hadiths are of two types: authentic and weak. This cannot be known, in the majority of cases, except by looking at the chains of these suspended hadiths outside of the Sahih.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Therefore, they narrated from him in the Sahih using the verb "narrated" (hadatha). He narrated many hadiths through the route of Hisham, so he is considered trustworthy in that regard. Once we understand this discussion about suspended hadiths and that they include both authentic and weak ones, the purpose of the author's statement here regarding the hadith becomes clear. He said, "Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended hadith." Why did he mention this? Because if he had said "Al-Bukhari narrated it," it would have been a case of tadlis. If the author had said "Al-Bukhari narrated it," it would have been a case of tadlis. Where does the tadlis come from? From misleading the reader into thinking that this is one of the most authentic hadiths, because the hadiths of Al-Bukhari, as we said, are the most authentic hadiths. But the scholars mention that there is a second category that is not among the most authentic hadiths, and that is the suspended hadiths. So that the reader would be aware and knowledgeable about the type of this hadith in Al-Bukhari, he said, "Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended hadith."
And the meaning of this is that the reader of this precise takhrij (tracing a hadith to its sources) must be alert to the fact that this hadith may contain something, that it may be from the second category. The second category of Al-Bukhari's hadiths is the suspended hadiths, and suspended hadiths are divided into two types: authentic hadiths and weak hadiths.
It may be that this is from the second category of weak hadiths, so you must be alert and verify whether this hadith is from the authentic suspended hadiths or the weak ones.
And as an answer to a question like this, I follow up the previous takhrij, which is his statement "Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended hadith," with the statement, "And the five narrated it with a complete chain, and Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban authenticated it." And since the author transmitted this ... from these two imams, it indicates that this suspended hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is from the first category, the authentic one. That is, suspension is of two types: authentic and weak. So when they said "Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban authenticated it," it indicates that this suspended hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is from the authentic category, which is the first of the two categories of suspension.
But this following up of this takhrij must also be taken with some caution, because the two mentioned, Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban, are known for leniency in authentication among the scholars of hadith, because they authenticate hadiths for some unknown narrators in the chain of narration. And Ibn Hibban is broader in his stride in this regard than his sheikh, Ibn Khuzaymah. Ibn Hibban authenticates hadiths of unknown narrators much more than his sheikh, Ibn Khuzaymah. This difference appears clearly to one who reads the book "Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah", of which the first and second volumes have been printed, and reads "Sahih Ibn Hibban", or even through "Mawarid al-Zum'an fi Zawa'id Sahih Ibn Hibban", and finds the difference clear between the two books and their two authors.
That is, we find that Ibn Khuzaymah, in his book Sahih, often brings a hadith and follows it or precedes it with the phrase "if it is authentic." In the Sahih, he brings the hadith and describes it with the phrase "If it is authentic, then so-and-so, I do not know him by any criticism or authentication." He brings it in the Sahih, and the point is not that he brings it as authentic; the point is that he defects the hadith due to the unknown narrator. Whereas you do not find such a thing in "Sahih Ibn Hibban"; he does not defect a hadith at all due to an unknown narrator. And this is an extreme leniency in authenticating hadiths of unknown narrators, unlike Ibn Khuzaymah, who is not broad in his stride in authenticating hadiths of unknown narrators, but we do find such authentication from him.
Since that is the case, it is necessary to be cautious in using as evidence the hadiths attributed to Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, and especially to Sahih Ibn Hibban, due to their leniency in authentication as we mentioned. But if the one transmitting the authentication, the authentication of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban, is like Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, then the soul is reassured by his transmission, because he is one of the imams who are huffaz (memorizers) and one of the greatest among the later scholars known for the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators), the comprehensive knowledge of the routes of hadith, and the knowledge of their defects. With this combination, the soul is reassured that this suspended hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is an authentic hadith, because Ibn Hajar, after attributing it to the five, followed it with the statement that Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban authenticated it and approved them for that. So the approval by Ibn Hajar of that reassures the soul that the hadith is authentic.
But this does not mean that the authentication is by Ibn Hajar for its own sake. It may be authentic in his view for another reason. And this is what is established for me, that this hadith, if my memory does not fail me, has something of an unknown narrator in its chain, but it has another route by which the hadith was strengthened, so it became authentic for another reason, not for its own sake. What remains after this is to understand this terminology: he says "The five narrated it." The five sometimes refers to the four authors of the Sunan plus Imam Ahmad, who is the fifth. And this is the usage here, in this book: the five intended are the four authors of the Sunan—Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, al-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah—and the fifth is Ahmad in his Musnad. Sometimes the five refers to Muslim and the four authors of the Sunan, and this is a usage specific to al-Muntaqa by Ibn Taymiyyah, the grandfather of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him).
So the meaning of this takhrij is that this hadith was mentioned by Al-Bukhari in his Sahih without a chain, as a suspended hadith, and it was mentioned by the four authors of the Sunan and Imam Ahmad with a connected chain to 'Amir ibn Yasir, and it was authenticated by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban.
Then, this hadith, from the perspective of the text, is mawquf (a report stopping at a Companion), because it says, "'Amir ibn Yasir said, 'Whoever fasts on the day of doubt'." It did not say, "The Messenger of Allah said." So its apparent status is mawquf: "Whoever fasts on the day of doubt has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim". So is this hadith in the ruling of marfu' (a report traced to the Prophet) or in the ruling of mawquf?
Now we wait for an answer from the people of fiqh and knowledge. Whoever has knowledge or an answer, whether he is right or wrong, the purpose is the exchange of knowledge. Whoever has knowledge or an answer, raise your finger. Please.

The questioner : Mawquf.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Because ... I mean.

The Shaykh : That is not my question. Pay attention: my question was not whether it is mawquf or marfu'? Is it in the ruling of marfu', in the ruling of marfu' or mawquf? It is mawquf, that is clear.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Because we said that the hadith came from 'Amir ibn Yasir, who said, and it did not come from 'Amir ibn Yasir saying, "The Messenger of Allah said." So this hadith is mawquf. It is mawquf, but the question is: is it in the ruling of marfu' or not?
So whoever has an answer, raise your finger again. Please.

The questioner : Mawquf, because it is not as it is said, "by opinion," because it is not from the matters of the unseen. For the matters of the unseen, it is said to have the ruling of marfu', and it is not said "by opinion." So this is not from the matters of the unseen.

The Shaykh : Okay, do you have something, or is this it?

The questioner : ... Marfu', marfu', because ... no ... by opinion.
Another questioner : On the contrary, it is.

The Shaykh : I mean, the opposite, it is like it.

The questioner : Yes ... because ... by opinion.

The Shaykh : Why is it not said "by opinion"? Yes, clarify, clarify why? Why is it not said "by opinion"? Now.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : You did not raise your hand, Professor ... .

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Okay, but I did not give you permission to speak. Now the conversation is with the brother here.

The questioner : His son, his son.

The Shaykh : Why, yes?

The questioner : With his son.

The Shaykh : His son, welcome. We need an explanation of why this hadith is in the ruling of marfu'?

The questioner : It is because ... it is said "by opinion."

The Shaykh : I mean, because he said ?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Okay, take your time, Professor, since this is his son?

The questioner : I mean, the issue involves an issue of disobedience, because the Messenger , this is something that 'Amir would not dare to say from himself, and it contains ... .
.

The questioner : This is considered ... .

The Shaykh : Now, what is the evidence that this is considered marfu' (attributed to the Prophet), other than what you have mentioned?

The questioner : Because it is an act of worship, a command of worship. And worship depends on the person of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and what came from Allah the Exalted, not ... .

The Shaykh : Now, regarding this answer, does anyone have an explanation about this? Perhaps other people have an answer different from what was said before. Perhaps other people also agree with the respondents here, but we want additional reasoning. If there is nothing, we will listen to the answers of the others. What?

The questioner : The hadith is mawquf (stopped at a Companion) ...

The Shaykh : Regarding this answer, or not?

The questioner : A rebuttal to his answer, meaning?

The Shaykh : No, it is not a rebuttal; it is an affirmation.

The questioner : ... ؟

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : He said that an act of worship is not to be decided by opinion. And it is established from the Companions that there were many opinions in matters of worship that contradicted the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So based on his statement, it would be necessary to attribute every opinion that came from a Companion in a matter of worship to the Prophet, and the truth is contrary to that.

The Shaykh : Did you hear, Professor ... ?

The questioner : ... he has disobeyed.

The Shaykh : Yes, but the brother is pointing out that there are rulings where it is said to be forbidden and it is said to be obligatory, and these are matters of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and the Companions differed on them. Therefore, this reality undermines the argument that I resorted to. Now, please proceed.

The questioner : I say that it has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet), and that is an indication from 'Ammar , and it seems to imply that he understood this ruling from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : Now, is there anything else?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : The hadith is mawquf (stopped at a Companion) and does not have the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet), and the reason is that if I were in his position, I would have understood this matter from the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) , , and so on. So our master 'Umar understood that the addition ...
Another questioner : 'Ammar.

The questioner : Excuse me, 'Ammar understood that disobeying Abu al-Qasim through this action is based on the general hadiths regarding religious innovation.

The Shaykh : Now, do you have something?

The questioner : I have, I say that this hadith has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet) ... .

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Because 'Ammar, with this word alone "he has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim" , as if he heard, meaning we are all certain that he heard the Messenger say that, but ... .

The Shaykh : Now, we need evidence?

The questioner : The evidence is his saying "he disobeyed Abu al-Qasim" .

The Shaykh : You.
Another questioner : It seems he is referring to the other hadith that you previously mentioned, in which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade advancing before Ramadan by fasting one day.

The Shaykh : Are there others who have something different? Whether they are right or wrong, the important thing is the discussion and ... yes.

The questioner : I say that this has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet).

The Shaykh : It has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet).

The questioner : Because, meaning, this is not said ... about the unseen, and then in the case of halal and haram, likewise in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, when the man, meaning, came out of the mosque and called the adhan, he said "As for this one, he has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim" .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : So this has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet), meaning.

The Shaykh : Yes, but you brought an answer that refuted it from here.

The questioner : This is a matter of halal and haram, meaning ... halal and haram is not said, meaning, except from Allah.

The Shaykh : ... they differed on many matters; this one says it is halal and this one says it is haram, and this one says it is obligatory and this one says it is not obligatory, in many matters they differed on them.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So it is possible that the difference is due to ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), so the prohibition by a Companion of a matter does not mean that it has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet), nor does his permission of a matter mean that it has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet), because this is a matter of ijtihad. And the answer is what you heard from Professor Ali, and that is what we referred to when we spoke about the hadith , where we said that this hadith includes fasting the Day of Doubt, because it is the day before Ramadan. So this hadith includes fasting the Day of Doubt. When 'Ammar ibn Yasir explicitly stated in the hadith ... that whoever fasts the Day of Doubt has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim, his certainty that he disobeyed Abu al-Qasim is based on the first hadith, because it says , so whoever advances has disobeyed. So from here, it is said that the hadith has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet) because of this hadith. And were it not for this hadith, it would be said that this is his opinion and ijtihad. And it does not mean that when a mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) explicitly states that whoever does such-and-such has disobeyed Allah and His Messenger, that he received it directly from Allah and His Messenger. Because we all know that the Imams used to forbid matters based on qiyas (analogical reasoning), and this qiyas is sometimes obvious to all people and sometimes hidden from some people at least. Then, in the end, sometimes he is right and sometimes he is wrong, but he is not to be blamed when he forbids or prevents something through what? Ijtihad.
But some scholars have etiquette in this matter. For example, Imam Ahmad, it is well known of him that he rarely explicitly forbids something unless it is textually established. Likewise, Malik, and they express this by saying "I dislike it" , "I dislike it" "It is disliked" , and they do not go beyond that. And this is, in reality, part of their piety and part of their precision in expressing legal rulings, fearing that they will be judged: why did they forbid it when there is no text forbidding it?
In summary, this hadith has the ruling of marfu' (attributed to the Prophet) by virtue of the hadith before it. And therefore, we said that the author followed the first hadith with the second hadith to include the second, which is specific or more specific, in the first hadith, which is more general.
In summary, it becomes clear to us from the two mentioned hadiths that fasting the Day of Doubt is not permissible, and this is a matter in which there has been disagreement since ancient times. And this disagreement should not be considered valid as long as this first hadith explicitly forbids the Muslim from advancing before Ramadan by fasting one day or two days, a general prohibition that includes fasting the Day of Doubt, and 'Ammar ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) explicitly stated that. Therefore, we should not let our minds be confused by this long, extended disagreement that we find here in the commentary and in other commentaries, regarding the much disagreement among scholars on the permissibility of fasting the Day of Doubt or its impermissibility, as long as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade advancing before Ramadan. And no person of intellect and sound mind doubts that whoever fasts the Day of Doubt has advanced by one day before Ramadan, and this is included in the aforementioned prohibition.