Is a hadith from a Companion (whom the narrator did not hear from) via a Successor to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stronger than a mursal?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Definitely, definitely it is so, because the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, holds to accepting what exceeds a handful.
The questioner : And the usage of the hadith scholars in employing them is considered a matter of lightness of mind, recklessness, and foolishness, among other things.
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah.
The questioner : Here, my Shaykh, you previously mentioned that a mursal is used as evidence if the Successor did not hear from the Companion, and then the Companion narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Is that stronger, or is the mursal from the Successor to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) stronger?
The Shaykh : That means here there are two broken chains; one is called mursal in technical terminology, and the other is called munqati'. Some people also call the latter a mursal. So, with this terminology, we now have two mursal reports. In one form, the Successor says, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said..." In the other mursal, he says, "From so-and-so the Companion, from the Messenger of Allah," but it is established that he did not hear from this Companion. So it is a mursal by some usages and a munqati' by the precise technical usage. The question I understood is: which one is...
The questioner : Stronger.
The Shaykh : Stronger. I find that the stronger one is the one where the point of disconnection, in the general sense, is from the Successor.
The questioner : From the Successor. All right, my Shaykh, is it possible if someone says that the mursal is stronger because the main path in narration is for a Successor to narrate from a Companion from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whereas a Successor from a Successor from a Companion is unlikely? This is unlikely. So we are certain in the first narration, which has a disconnection between the Successor and the Companion, that the missing link is a Successor, or it is more likely to us that the missing link is a Successor and not a Companion.
The Shaykh : In the form of saying "from a Companion."
The questioner : If we suppose, for example, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from 'Umar, and there is a statement that the narration of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from 'Umar is broken.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : So when Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib narrates from 'Umar from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : Is this research about which one is stronger in terms of being used as evidence?
The Shaykh : What is the difference? I do not see what the difference is between the two matters.
The questioner : It seemed to me first that the narration which mentions the Companion is first, because it is... if mentioning the Companion does not benefit, then at least it does not harm.
The Shaykh : Our concern now is that it benefits, not just that it does not harm.
The questioner : I say if it does not benefit, then at least it does not harm, if the mursal narration from the Successor does not contain a Companion at all.
The Shaykh : What benefits us now, Professor, is that it benefits. We are now in the process of proving that it benefits, or that it is more beneficial than the narration that is mursal absolutely.
The questioner : All right, the aspect you spoke about a little while ago, which became clear to me in this gathering, is that the Successor saying "from" the Companion, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from 'Umar, if he had another Companion besides 'Umar, he would have mentioned it, so it is more likely to us.
The Shaykh : No, no, please, let us leave this example, let us leave the example, because this example is sensitive, and you pointed to it because it was said...
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : That he heard from him as a child, and so on. Take now a general subject, not restricted by a specific form. We want to see where the benefit, or the soundness, or the lesser weakness comes from, as long as the intermediary is unknown. That is, when the Successor says, "The Messenger of Allah said," it is possible, as you said, that the intermediary between him and the Messenger is a Companion from whom he heard, and it is possible that there is a Successor and a Successor between them, as al-'Asqalani mentioned. All right, why are these possibilities not possible if he says "from so-and-so the Companion"? Why are these possibilities not possible?The questioner : That is, you do not see a difference between this and that.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Good, if Allah wills.
The questioner : And the usage of the hadith scholars in employing them is considered a matter of lightness of mind, recklessness, and foolishness, among other things.
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah.
The questioner : Here, my Shaykh, you previously mentioned that a mursal is used as evidence if the Successor did not hear from the Companion, and then the Companion narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Is that stronger, or is the mursal from the Successor to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) stronger?
The Shaykh : That means here there are two broken chains; one is called mursal in technical terminology, and the other is called munqati'. Some people also call the latter a mursal. So, with this terminology, we now have two mursal reports. In one form, the Successor says, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said..." In the other mursal, he says, "From so-and-so the Companion, from the Messenger of Allah," but it is established that he did not hear from this Companion. So it is a mursal by some usages and a munqati' by the precise technical usage. The question I understood is: which one is...
The questioner : Stronger.
The Shaykh : Stronger. I find that the stronger one is the one where the point of disconnection, in the general sense, is from the Successor.
The questioner : From the Successor. All right, my Shaykh, is it possible if someone says that the mursal is stronger because the main path in narration is for a Successor to narrate from a Companion from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whereas a Successor from a Successor from a Companion is unlikely? This is unlikely. So we are certain in the first narration, which has a disconnection between the Successor and the Companion, that the missing link is a Successor, or it is more likely to us that the missing link is a Successor and not a Companion.
The Shaykh : In the form of saying "from a Companion."
The questioner : If we suppose, for example, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from 'Umar, and there is a statement that the narration of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from 'Umar is broken.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : So when Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib narrates from 'Umar from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : Is this research about which one is stronger in terms of being used as evidence?
The Shaykh : What is the difference? I do not see what the difference is between the two matters.
The questioner : It seemed to me first that the narration which mentions the Companion is first, because it is... if mentioning the Companion does not benefit, then at least it does not harm.
The Shaykh : Our concern now is that it benefits, not just that it does not harm.
The questioner : I say if it does not benefit, then at least it does not harm, if the mursal narration from the Successor does not contain a Companion at all.
The Shaykh : What benefits us now, Professor, is that it benefits. We are now in the process of proving that it benefits, or that it is more beneficial than the narration that is mursal absolutely.
The questioner : All right, the aspect you spoke about a little while ago, which became clear to me in this gathering, is that the Successor saying "from" the Companion, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from 'Umar, if he had another Companion besides 'Umar, he would have mentioned it, so it is more likely to us.
The Shaykh : No, no, please, let us leave this example, let us leave the example, because this example is sensitive, and you pointed to it because it was said...
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : That he heard from him as a child, and so on. Take now a general subject, not restricted by a specific form. We want to see where the benefit, or the soundness, or the lesser weakness comes from, as long as the intermediary is unknown. That is, when the Successor says, "The Messenger of Allah said," it is possible, as you said, that the intermediary between him and the Messenger is a Companion from whom he heard, and it is possible that there is a Successor and a Successor between them, as al-'Asqalani mentioned. All right, why are these possibilities not possible if he says "from so-and-so the Companion"? Why are these possibilities not possible?The questioner : That is, you do not see a difference between this and that.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Good, if Allah wills.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.