What is the validity of the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, which he adopted in the introduction to *Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn*, regarding the issue of *irsal* and *tadlis* and the overlap of their definitions?

The questioner : Our Shaykh, regarding the issue of *irsal* and *tadlis*, and the definition of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in *Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn*, and his division of *tadlis* into two types: *irsal jali* (obvious omission) and *irsal khafi* (hidden omission), and *tadlis*. He mentioned that *irsal khafi* is narrating from someone whom the narrator met, but it is not established that he heard anything from him, as found in many books of terminology?

The Shaykh : No.

The questioner : And it is not established that he heard it, or the meeting did not result in hearing the narration. Yes, may Allah preserve you. It is not established that the meeting resulted in hearing the narration, meaning he met him but did not hear from him?

The Shaykh : He met him but did not.

The questioner : He met him but did not hear from him. This is *irsal khafi*: he met him but did not hear. As for *irsal jali*, it is being a contemporary without meeting. And as for *tadlis*, it is meeting and hearing from some but not from others.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : In some books of terminology, they mention *irsal khafi* and they mention *tadlis* as the narrator narrating from someone he was a contemporary of, from whom he did not hear. This is according to the definition of al-Hafiz in the introduction to *Maratib al-Mudallisīn*, where he states that what is considered *tadlis* is *irsal*. Al-Hafiz argued for this in the book *al-Nukat* regarding the *Mukhadhrimīn* (those who lived in both the pre-Islamic and Islamic eras). He said, "They were contemporaries of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and did not hear from him, and no one counted them as *mudallis* (those who practice *tadlis*)." So what is the validity of this statement adopted by al-Hafiz?

The Shaykh : I do not have an answer for this; it is a confused matter.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : Yes, but can you limit the scope to the point of difficulty? Can you limit the scope to the point of difficulty in this statement?

The questioner : The difficulty is the overlap of definitions. The definitions overlap. If we define *tadlis* as the narrator narrating from someone he was a contemporary of, from whom he did not hear, that falls under the definition of *irsal khafi*. So al-Hafiz says this condition is necessary: it must be said that *irsal khafi* is the narrator narrating from someone he met but did not hear anything from, in order to exclude *tadlis* and *irsal* in its two types. And as for *tadlis*, it must be the narrator narrating from someone from whom he heard some, and from others from whom he did not hear except through an intermediary?

The Shaykh : Now, I will say a word. Did you hear anything of this recently? That one should not be a buyer, but also a seller? Let us see what you have, and you are fresh from this reading?

The questioner : What I have regarding this is the validity of what al-Hafiz adopted in the introduction to *Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn*. Because if we said *irsal* is the narrator narrating from someone he was a contemporary of, from whom he did not hear, that would include the *Mukhadhrimīn*, as al-Hafiz (may Allah have mercy on him) said, that the *Mukhadhrimīn* were contemporaries of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and did not hear from him. And undoubtedly, no one described them as practicing *tadlis* in that regard. Their narration is *mursal* (omitted). The narration is from the category of *mursal*, not from the category of *mudallis* narration. And his statement in the introduction to *Tabaqat* is that this condition is necessary so that the types are distinguished, meaning they are separated from one another, which is better than generalization, where the types overlap and are not distinguished.

The Shaykh : Now, is intention not considered in *tadlis*?

The questioner : Yes, the intention to mislead. Yes.

The Shaykh : Now, is this present in *irsal*?

The questioner : Misleading is not present in *irsal*.

The Shaykh : This is the difference.

The questioner : Meaning, it is added to the narrator narrating from someone he did not hear from, from someone he was a contemporary of, with the intention of misleading. That is also their statement in terminology: with the intention of misleading.

The Shaykh : This is what appears to be the case, and Allah knows best.

The questioner : In a point, my teacher, which was mentioned in the words of the brother Abu al-Hasan, quoting al-Hafiz, which is that the *mudallis* heard something and did not hear something. But the *mudallis*, I say, and this is something added and emphasized in addition to the general thing.

The Shaykh : The intention. Yes.

The questioner : That is it.

The questioner : Its criterion is two things. But mere contemporaneity with misleading does not suffice. Contemporaneity with hearing something and leaving something else, and misleading, all of this can occur with contemporaneity. Misleading is *irsal khafi* in the sense that I met a Shaykh and I might mislead people that I heard from him, when I did not hear at all.

The Shaykh : With intention.

The questioner : With intention as well.

The Shaykh : This is definitely *mudallis*.

The questioner : Now, when I say "so-and-so understood," they understand that it is not from us, but they understand and fall into doubt. Even if it is required that this be from the *mudallis* himself, intending to cause them confusion.

The Shaykh : And what about the *mudallisīn* then?

The questioner : He intends to cause them confusion.

The Shaykh : That is it.

Another questioner : Otherwise, every *munqati'* (disconnected narration) would be *mudallis*.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.