What is the answer to the difficulty raised by some students regarding the lack of distinction between the terms *tadlis al-isnad* and *tadlis al-shuyukh*?

The questioner : Here, my Shaykh, many students raise a difficulty regarding the categories of *tadlis*. They read in the books of terminology that *tadlis* is, according to the well-known view, divided into two types: *tadlis al-isnad* and *tadlis al-shuyukh*. Some students here understand, or say in their difficulty, that the *isnad* is known and refers to the men; they understand the *isnad* as the counterpart to the *matn*, and the *shuyukh* are within the *isnad*.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide them.

The questioner : So why is its counterpart itself?

The Shaykh : And why do they put themselves in the hole of a scorpion? These are terminological matters; what is the problem with them?

The questioner : They say, how can a thing be divided, meaning the thing and its counterpart are one and the same?

The Shaykh : No, it is general and specific. Why are they one thing? It is a term that distinguishes one thing from another, and both are in the *sanad*.

The questioner : It appears to me, my Shaykh, in this context, that the answer I will present to you, if Allah wills, is this.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : And that is that what is intended by *tadlis al-isnad* is not that the *isnad* means the men of the *sanad*; rather, what is intended by *tadlis al-isnad* is *tadlis* of the hearing and *tadlis* of the formula. This is supported by the fact that in some books of *al-jarh wa al-ta'dil*, it is said "so-and-so from so-and-so, *isnad*," and "so-and-so from so-and-so, not *isnad*," meaning connected and not connected. It is possible to answer this by saying that what is intended by *isnad* is the formula or the wording of transmission, while what is intended by *shuyukh* is changing the *kunya* or changing the name. Its size is known, and the known is changed to magnify its status. It can also be said that *tadlis al-isnad* means *tadlis* of the hearing, because *isnad* is also, in the usage of the *muhaddithin*, what is said about the hearing: so-and-so is included in the *musnad* and so-and-so is not included in the *musnad*, meaning in the connected chain where the hearing is established.

The Shaykh : But may Allah reward you, this is a correct answer as a reality, but it does not remove the difficulty.

The questioner : It does not remove the difficulty.

The Shaykh : It does not remove the difficulty, because the hearing is in the *isnad* in terms of existence and non-existence.

The questioner : But when we say it is *tadlis* of the hearing or *tadlis* of the *shuyukh*, then there is no difficulty.

The Shaykh : But that is not the definition; the difficulty is still applicable.

The questioner : To whom said the *shuyukh* are in the *isnad*? Yes, the *shuyukh* are in the *isnad*. The existence of *tadlis al-taswiyyah* in the *isnad*, *tadlis al-sukut*, and *tadlis al-'atf*—*tadlis al-sukut* and *tadlis al-qat'*—is all in the *isnad*.

The Shaykh : It is all in the *isnad*.

The questioner : Most of it is in the *isnad*, along with its *tadlis* in the *isnad*.

The Shaykh : This does not provide the distinction you are drawing attention to, which is what is intended. And this is correct as a reality, but they did not distinguish it. I mean, they did not give you the example. And I think the issue is very easy: it is a term, and what is intended is what you mentioned.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : And may He bless you.

The questioner : Okay, our Shaykh.