What is your opinion regarding the condition of Muslim and who he meant by the rejection in the introduction of his Sahih?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Yes, regarding what you think about the condition of Muslim which he explained in the introduction of his Sahih concerning the hadith with a missing link (mu'annan) and who he meant by the rejection, did he mean Ali ibn al-Madini or did he mean al-Bukhari?
The Shaykh : I have not formed an opinion on who is meant by the refutation of Imam Muslim in the introduction, but it is well known that the one intended is his colleague, or rather his Shaykh, al-Bukhari. However, the severity of his words prevents us from being certain that he specifically means him, because we know that the early scholars were very polite with their Shaykhs, especially those who had done them favors. It would perhaps be good for me to mention something that may be new on this topic, which I have written in some of my recent works: al-Bukhari has two positions in this issue. The first, which is well known from him, is that he conditions [authenticity] on meeting the narrator. The other is that he is content with contemporaneity. However, the first position is his condition for a hadith to be *sahih* (authentic), while the other position is one he does not adhere to for a hadith that is less than *sahih*, such as a *hasan* (good) hadith. This is because I found a statement by his student al-Tirmidhi in his *Sunan*, where he grades a hadith as *hasan* and quotes his Imam al-Bukhari as having graded it *hasan*, with an explicit mention of contemporaneity. So it is as if I found a respite for such a new text to bridge the gap of disagreement between the majority, who are with Imam Muslim, and Imam al-Bukhari, between whom disagreement has been established regarding the condition of meeting the narrator. I then found that the condition of meeting the narrator is one of al-Bukhari's conditions for his *Sahih*, but not one of his conditions for what is outside the *Sahih* and for the hadiths that his student quotes from him in his *Sunan*, whether he is improving them or sometimes authenticating them. Perhaps you remember, and perhaps you have also practically tested, the scholars' agreement that al-Bukhari and Muslim did not collect all authentic hadiths in their *Sahih*s; rather, each of them chose the most authentic of what he had in the chapter or in the context. Imam Muslim explicitly stated this meaning in the same book when his narrator, whose name I have forgotten, narrated from him that a hadith is authenticSunan an-Nasa'i 921Sahih (Darussalam), and his student said to him, "You did not include this hadith in your *Sahih*." He said, "I did not include every authentic hadith in it." So in my view, this distinction is that the condition of meeting the narrator is at the highest level of *sahih* according to al-Bukhari, but its absence does not make the hadith weak in his view if the other agreed-upon conditions of authenticity, or those he accepted as his own position, are met. If the condition of meeting the narrator is not realized along with those conditions, it does not mean that the hadith has dropped from the rank of authenticity to weakness in al-Bukhari's view, but rather it is in between. This is what I understood from some narrations I saw in *Sunan al-Tirmidhi*, where he quotes the improvement of hadiths from Imam al-Bukhari. I hope this research will be published soon, if Allah wills, in some of what is being printed. This is what... also
The questioner : So, regarding the condition of Muslim, is it authentic in your view?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : And the chain of narration is connected to him.
The Shaykh : ... Of course, as you know, the known condition is that it not be
The questioner : Tadlis (concealment of a defect) or Mursal (a report missing the Companion link), yes.
The Shaykh: Yes
The questioner : Tadlis and Mursal are absent, meaning it is like this.
The Shaykh : You did not understand.
The questioner : Tadlis means... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : That it not be from a Mudallis (one who conceals defects) or a Mursal, yes.
The Shaykh : That the one with the missing link (Mu'annan) is not known for Tadlis.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the truth is that Imam Muslim, meaning he brought things that cannot be rejected. Meaning, when a Tabi'i (successor) narrates a report from a Companion, and the Tabi'i is trustworthy, and we do not have a report that proves the meeting, the practice of the scholars of hadith has been to reject absolutely, meaning for such a report. But as long as the narrator is trustworthy, a Tabi'i, and a contemporary of that Companion, and we do not have that he was accused of Tadlis, and we do not have a date that specifies that he did not meet him, and similar defects, then what the majority of the scholars of hadith are upon, as Imam Muslim mentioned, is to use this report as evidence. But without a doubt, the condition of al-Bukhari is stronger and more correct; there is no disagreement on this.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not a place of disagreement at all, but the place of disagreement is whether the hadith is rejected due to the non-establishment of the meeting or not? I am completely convinced with the majority that the truth is with Imam Muslim in this.
The Shaykh : I have not formed an opinion on who is meant by the refutation of Imam Muslim in the introduction, but it is well known that the one intended is his colleague, or rather his Shaykh, al-Bukhari. However, the severity of his words prevents us from being certain that he specifically means him, because we know that the early scholars were very polite with their Shaykhs, especially those who had done them favors. It would perhaps be good for me to mention something that may be new on this topic, which I have written in some of my recent works: al-Bukhari has two positions in this issue. The first, which is well known from him, is that he conditions [authenticity] on meeting the narrator. The other is that he is content with contemporaneity. However, the first position is his condition for a hadith to be *sahih* (authentic), while the other position is one he does not adhere to for a hadith that is less than *sahih*, such as a *hasan* (good) hadith. This is because I found a statement by his student al-Tirmidhi in his *Sunan*, where he grades a hadith as *hasan* and quotes his Imam al-Bukhari as having graded it *hasan*, with an explicit mention of contemporaneity. So it is as if I found a respite for such a new text to bridge the gap of disagreement between the majority, who are with Imam Muslim, and Imam al-Bukhari, between whom disagreement has been established regarding the condition of meeting the narrator. I then found that the condition of meeting the narrator is one of al-Bukhari's conditions for his *Sahih*, but not one of his conditions for what is outside the *Sahih* and for the hadiths that his student quotes from him in his *Sunan*, whether he is improving them or sometimes authenticating them. Perhaps you remember, and perhaps you have also practically tested, the scholars' agreement that al-Bukhari and Muslim did not collect all authentic hadiths in their *Sahih*s; rather, each of them chose the most authentic of what he had in the chapter or in the context. Imam Muslim explicitly stated this meaning in the same book when his narrator, whose name I have forgotten, narrated from him that a hadith is authentic
The Imam is appointed to be followed, so when he says the takbir, say the takbir, and when he recites, be silent
إنما جعل الإمام ليؤتمّ به فإذا كبّر فكبّروا وإذا قرأ فأنصتواThe questioner : So, regarding the condition of Muslim, is it authentic in your view?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : And the chain of narration is connected to him.
The Shaykh : ... Of course, as you know, the known condition is that it not be
The questioner : Tadlis (concealment of a defect) or Mursal (a report missing the Companion link), yes.
The Shaykh: Yes
The questioner : Tadlis and Mursal are absent, meaning it is like this.
The Shaykh : You did not understand.
The questioner : Tadlis means... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : That it not be from a Mudallis (one who conceals defects) or a Mursal, yes.
The Shaykh : That the one with the missing link (Mu'annan) is not known for Tadlis.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, and the truth is that Imam Muslim, meaning he brought things that cannot be rejected. Meaning, when a Tabi'i (successor) narrates a report from a Companion, and the Tabi'i is trustworthy, and we do not have a report that proves the meeting, the practice of the scholars of hadith has been to reject absolutely, meaning for such a report. But as long as the narrator is trustworthy, a Tabi'i, and a contemporary of that Companion, and we do not have that he was accused of Tadlis, and we do not have a date that specifies that he did not meet him, and similar defects, then what the majority of the scholars of hadith are upon, as Imam Muslim mentioned, is to use this report as evidence. But without a doubt, the condition of al-Bukhari is stronger and more correct; there is no disagreement on this.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not a place of disagreement at all, but the place of disagreement is whether the hadith is rejected due to the non-establishment of the meeting or not? I am completely convinced with the majority that the truth is with Imam Muslim in this.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.