Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) said, “If a report from the narration of a *mudallis* is established with me as having explicitly stated the hearing of it, I do not mind mentioning it without specifying the hearing.”

The questioner : Now, in the introduction to his *Sahih*, he says: “If a report from the narration of a *mudallis* is established with me as having explicitly stated the hearing of it, I do not mind mentioning it without specifying the hearing in his report, after it has been established with me from another path.” Did the question appear or not?

The Shaykh : Repeat it for me.

The questioner : Repeat the phrase: “If a report from the narration of a *mudallis* is established with me as having explicitly stated the hearing of it, I do not mind mentioning it without specifying the hearing in his report, after it has been established with me from another path.”

The Shaykh : It is not clear to me.

The questioner : Let me clarify my understanding of it, and my understanding of Ibn Hibban’s words. He says: If I see that the *mudallis* has explicitly stated the hearing, I do not mind including it in my *Sahih* with *'an'anah*, provided that his explicit statement of hearing is established with me from another narration.The Shaykh : This is from another narration. And if I include it in the *Sahih* with *'an'anah*, then it has become clear to me, meaning it is similar to the practice of Muslim, where he narrates the reports of weak narrators because they are established with him from the path of trustworthy narrators, but with the weak narrators it is at a higher level and with the trustworthy narrators at a lower level. So Imam Ibn Hibban says: I have established the hearing. If I include the report in the *Sahih* as *mudallis* or with *'an'anah*, the consideration is that I have known it to be *mudallis* or with *'an'anah*. If I include the report in the *Sahih* with *'an'anah*, that is because I rely on the explicit statement of hearing from another narration mentioned in the *Sahih*. The question in this is: Does it follow from that that the *'an'anah* of the *mudallis* in *Sahih Ibn Hibban* has had its defect removed and the issue resolved, because Ibn Hibban stopped at it? This is on the assumption that Ibn Hibban knew the *mudallis*.

The Shaykh : I say that if this understanding is what Ibn Hibban intended, then we do not agree with it.

The questioner : Repeat the phrase, Shaykh. It does not appear to me except that it has become clear to you, or to our brother Ali, or to one of the brothers, that this is not the understanding. He says here: “If it is established with me…”

The Shaykh : No problem, let us assume that this is the intent.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : But this does not align with knowledge.

The questioner : It is not agreed upon.

The Shaykh : Because this involves concealing; it is presenting the correct chain in the appearance of a weak chain.

The questioner : For those who look into it, yes.

The Shaykh : And this does not help in spreading correct knowledge.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And therefore, we elevate the status of Imam Ibn Hibban from the idea that his intent from this phrase is this meaning. And so we search, perhaps in the corners, for hidden matters.

The questioner : What Allah willed. And the second point, Shaykh, even if his intent was this, this man is a *mudallis* with us. Who informed us that Ibn Hibban sees him as a *mudallis* as we see him?

The Shaykh : He, all of this is refuted.

The questioner : Also, our brother Abu al-Hasan (may Allah preserve him) stopped me at some places in *Sahih Ibn Hibban* where he explicitly stated that the man is a *mudallis* and criticized it for *tadlis*, while including him in the *Sahih* in the same *Sahih*.

The Shaykh : And he criticized it for *tadlis*.

The questioner : And he criticized it for the *tadlis* of his *'an'anah*.

The Shaykh : Meaning he did not conceal it, he did not conceal it. But someone might say: This is if he specified it. But if he was silent, it is carried on the first rule in the introduction.The Shaykh : No, meaning here, if he specified it, the responsibility is lifted.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And the objection we raised earlier is lifted. Meaning, this is like the *muhaddith* who narrates a hadith with its chain, in which there is an accused person, a weak person, *tadlis*, and so on, and there is no responsibility on him because he narrated the hadith with the chain, and his unspoken state says: Do not rely on my narration of the hadith with its chain, but rely in your research of this chain. This is completely different from some, or most, of the scholars, past and present, when they come to a hadith, for example from the *Musnad* of Imam Ahmad, or from the *Mu'jam* of al-Tabarani, for instance, and they transmit the hadith from one of these books: “Imam Ahmad narrated it, Imam al-Tabarani narrated it.” And there might be in it someone accused of fabrication or lying. This person is not free of blame, unlike the one from whom the hadith was transmitted, who is Imam Ahmad, for example, or al-Tabarani, because each of them is free of blame because he narrated the hadith with the chain that enables the scholar to know the state of this hadith in terms of authenticity and weakness. Here, regarding the meaning that appeared or that I clarified earlier, that this is the intent of Imam Ibn Hibban from this phrase, that he includes the hadith in his *Sahih* through the path of the *mudallis* with *'an'anah* because he stopped at it with explicit statement of narration, this is what was refuted by what we mentioned earlier. As for the example I transmitted earlier from Abu al-Hasan, that he mentioned the hadith through the path of the *mudallis* with *'an'anah*, and Imam Ibn Hibban explicitly stated that so-and-so is a *mudallis*.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : This is like the one who transmits the hadith with the chain. Meaning, he lifted the responsibility, his conscience is clear. Similarly here, Ibn Hibban’s conscience is clear. But in the first case, if the meaning mentioned earlier is correct, this is a very big problem.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

Another questioner : I stopped, Shaykh, at al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, who criticized it for *tadlis* in *Sahih Ibn Hibban*.

The Shaykh : What is it?

Another questioner : He criticizes hadiths for *tadlis* and *'an'anah* in *Sahih Ibn Hibban*, and the *'an'anah* of the *mudallis*.

The Shaykh : Yes.

Another questioner : This shows that, at least, he did not fulfill his condition.

The Shaykh : Yes, he.

The questioner : And that the scholars did not pay attention to his statement that it is Muslim with them or with them.

The Shaykh : Correct. And we often mentioned in a previous session that he neglected his condition in many cases. But for example, the narrator from the one he authenticated is trustworthy, while he mentions some of the authenticated ones with him from the narration of a man accused with him.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Accused with him.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : But, by Allah, repeat the phrase for me.

The questioner : Yes. He says here: Ibn Hibban said in the introduction to his *Sahih*, Part One, page 151, and in some copies page 162: “If a report from the narration of a *mudallis* is established with me as having explicitly stated the hearing of it, I do not mind mentioning it without specifying the hearing in his report, after it has been established with me from another path.” End.

The Shaykh : Okay, this is all his speech.

The questioner : This is all his speech, yes.

The Shaykh : Now, the problem is that you said “in his *Sahih*.”

The questioner : This is in the introduction to the *Sahih*. This speech, Shaykh, is in the introduction to the *Sahih*.

The Shaykh : Meaning, you restricted it to the *Sahih* because this speech is in the introduction to his *Sahih*.

The questioner : He is mentioning his methodology, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : In his *Sahih*.

The questioner : Yes, and he mentions his methodology in his *Sahih*. So he mentioned this in the introduction to his *Sahih*, in his methodology in the book.

The Shaykh : By Allah, this is definitely a problem.

The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, even if someone argued and said: Ibn Hibban is an Imam and he has sufficed us.

The Shaykh : What is the intent of the phrase “from another path”?

The questioner : His saying “I do not mind mentioning it without specifying the hearing in his report” means that he mentions it with *'an'anah*. This is the meaning of this phrase.

The Shaykh : No, in the phrase.

The questioner : Present. It will come: “I do not mind mentioning it without specifying the hearing in his report, after it has been established with me from another path,” meaning from another path, not from the *mudallis*, not from the one with *'an'anah*.

The Shaykh : There is no benefit.

The questioner : There is no benefit.

The Shaykh : Problem, problem.

The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, even if someone argued and said: Ibn Hibban is an Imam and he has sufficed us, for example, as Shu'bah said, “I have sufficed you regarding *tadlis*,” and it is true in what he said, we say to him: Who informed us that Ibn Hibban agrees with us that this narrator is a *mudallis*? Perhaps Ibn Hibban does not see that this is *tadlis*. And from here, he does not guard against his *'an'anah* and does not look at what removes it from another path, so he included it in his book as if it is not *tadlis*.

The Shaykh : Meaning, this mixes with that.

The questioner : This mixes with that. And with the mixing and lack of distinction, we stop and need to return to the rules.

The Shaykh : This is established.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : And may Allah bless you.

Another questioner : Okay, if it were the opposite of this picture, Shaykh. We stopped at a narrator and we know that Ibn Hibban knows him for *tadlis*, then we saw him narrate his report in his *Sahih* with *'an'anah*. This is not in his condition. This is the opposite. The opposite of the opposite.

The Shaykh : How?

Another questioner : Meaning, now we are certain that Ibn Hibban knows this narrator for *tadlis*.

The Shaykh : Okay.

Another questioner : Then he narrated his report in the *Sahih* with *'an'anah*, and we remember that in the introduction he says: The report that is established with me by explicit statement of hearing, I do not mind if I mention it otherwise from another path. Does this make us say that, because Ibn Hibban mentioned in his introduction what preceded, we carry it on the hearing?

The Shaykh : No, we say this is in the hearing, in the opposite.

The questioner : The last picture.

The Shaykh : But what he mentioned in the introduction is valid.

The questioner : It is valid for the example I mentioned, not for the example our brother Abu al-Hasan mentioned.

The Shaykh : Yes, but your example is what I intended in my statement.

The questioner : Perfectly.

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner : So, do we do this?

The Shaykh : What do we do? I mean, what do we do? Do we stand? Do we stand? What? No.

The questioner : Perhaps our Shaykh does not keep in mind the context of the hadith, the state of the narrator with regard to concealment (tadlis), perhaps.

The Shaykh : Perhaps what?

The questioner : He does not keep in mind the context of the hadith.

The Shaykh : It is possible.

The questioner : That the narrator is one who conceals defects (a mudallis).

The Shaykh : All of this, and this, and this is valid, by Allah.