Is it permissible to cite the narrators of the two Shaykhs absolutely?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : I mean, the intended meaning in the books of terminology when they say "it is on the condition of Muslim" and it was not included in the sixth rank, did they mean the conditionality that is explained elsewhere in the books of terminology, which means that the narrators are the same narrators, and that the student narrated from this specific person without having narrated from anyone else? If you want to rule that a hadith is on the condition of Muslim, it is necessary that the narrators are the same narrators, and that he produced the hadith you have, meaning it was produced in the same form, in the form of conjunction, which... Is this what is meant here by the condition, or does the chain of transmission (isnad) enter into this discussion?The Shaykh : Specifically, without having narrated from anyone else. If you mean that you want to rule that a hadith is on the condition of Muslim, it is necessary that the narrators be the same narrators, and that he has produced the hadith you have, meaning it was produced in the same form, in the form of the gathering that... Is this what is intended here by the condition, or does the use of "from" (the particle of narration) fall within this statement?
The Shaykh : In my opinion, the use of "from" (the particle of narration) is included.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But the first is stronger, meaning if the chain of transmission is the same chain of transmission in all its narrators, from the Companion to Muslim's shaykh, without doubt this will be stronger in that it is on the condition of Muslim.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But this is not a necessary requirement. The narrators may differ, but it is required that there be no suspicion of disconnection or concealment of a defect (tadlis) or the like, so that the later scholar can say this hadith is on the condition of Muslim. The first form is stronger, and without doubt it is that the chain is the same, appearing outside Muslim as it is in Muslim. There are not a few hadiths of this kind in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and others. But if a narrator or more is missing and one of them took the place of the other, and he was like him in reliability, precision, and freedom from poor memory and similar defects, I see it permissible to state that it is on the condition of Muslim. This is how al-Hakim and others besides al-Hakim proceeded when they say this hadith is on the condition of Muslim; they do not always adhere to the first form. Likewise, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi and al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani, when they say that al-Dhahabi agreed with al-Hakim in authenticating it on the condition of Muslim. Perhaps you remember that they are lenient in their expression when, for example, the hadith in its chain contains Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Madani, the author of the Sirah, or Sharik ibn Abdullah al-Qadi. Al-Hakim says it is authentic on the condition of Muslim. It has been noted that there is leniency and laxity in this expression, because his statement that it is on the condition of Muslim is not precise unless one of the two men I named earlier was paired with another, because that is the condition of Muslim. Muslim did not cite Ibn Ishaq, nor did he cite the Qadi, but he narrated from them only when they were paired with others. So if among the narrators who are said to have a chain on the condition of Muslim there is not such a person, and Muslim cited him independently, then there is no objection at that time to saying that it is authentic on the condition of Muslim, even if the form of the chain differs in some layers from what is in Sahih Muslim in some hadiths.
The questioner : I mean, Shaykh, do you see that it is not required that the man be the same man in the conditionality of al-Bukhari and Muslim?
The Shaykh : This is the man.
The questioner : The form may differ.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : I think, Shaykh, the form differs if Muslim or al-Bukhari cited him absolutely, because there are narrators whom al-Bukhari or Muslim cite absolutely, meaning without being restricted to a specific chain or biography. And there are narrators whom al-Bukhari or Muslim cite in the form of conjunction. So it is valid in the first case, I think, but not in the second, is that not so?
The Shaykh : Where do we get that he is cited absolutely? We take from studying their Sahih and say so-and-so is one of al-Bukhari's narrators.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But we do not have a text that al-Bukhari cites him absolutely or conditionally, or that Muslim cites him absolutely or conditionally. Rather, from our examination of the narrators of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and our finding that they cite such people, we say that we also cite them. So if the chain of transmission is all of this weight withThe Shaykh : one of them, we say it is on the condition of al-Bukhari. But it is not required that the form be the form of the chain from beginning to end as found in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Your statement earlier was not clear that...
The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, this is to me...
The Shaykh : ... cited absolutely. Where do we take this from?
The questioner : By Allah, it seems to me, I mean, this is what I remember in the books of terminology, and what I remember now is that al-Hafiz established it in al-Nukat and distinguished between the form of conjunction and the form of independence. Perhaps for the trusted narrators agreed upon, it is assumed that al-Bukhari and Muslim cited them absolutely, or if al-Bukhari or Muslim authenticated this narrator or the like. As for those like Ibn Ishaq and others, they produced what was supported by other chains. So from this angle, I do not know, this is what was mentioned...
The Shaykh : Does al-Bukhari authenticate the man but not produce a hadith for him?
The questioner : No, there is not.
The Shaykh : I.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner : ... his absolute authentication, meaning that it is absolute.
The Shaykh : Does this not occur to your mind?
The questioner : No, it is in my mind, yes. But my intention is his absolute authentication, which is without restriction, indicates absolute citation, which is without restriction. I mean, if he authenticated the man and did not restrict him to the Shamites or to such-and-such or such-and-such, this restriction, if he authenticated him absolutely, means he is cited absolutely with him.
The Shaykh : My question is
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : How do we know that he authenticated him absolutely? From inside the Sahih or outside the Sahih?
The questioner : Generally, meaning...
The Shaykh : I mean, it is necessary that the authentication
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : be either from inside the Sahih as a practice, and not as a text.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Or it be from outside the Sahih as a text, and not as a practice.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is this clear?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Okay
The questioner : I say, meaning perhaps
The Shaykh : if the matter is so, if you allow me, if the matter is so, then either we say we know his authentication from inside the Sahih, so we say this is on his condition, and we do not have that he authenticated him absolutely. Or we say he authenticated him outside the Sahih, then the previous objection is raised: that the man may be authenticated outside the Sahih but not cited in the Sahih. So his authentication outside the Sahih does not necessitate his citation in the Sahih.
The questioner : Well, someone might say there is a necessity, because he did not require authenticity, he did not require collecting every authentic hadith in his Sahih. So there is no objection that this man whom he authenticated outside the Sahih is one he cites, but he did not include him because he included someone higher than him in his chapter.
The Shaykh : No problem, this is... not a point of disagreement.
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : The matter, may Allah reward you, is: from where do we say that this narrator whom he narrated from in the Sahih was authenticated absolutely? From where?
The questioner : I mean, if, perhaps, our Shaykh, I do not think they mentioned it. I have not come across anything of this.
The Shaykh : In any case.
The questioner : But
The Shaykh : The person mentions
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : what he has come across.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : What I know is that those whom al-Bukhari authenticates are of two categories.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : A category he cites in the Sahih, and a category he does not cite in the Sahih.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And there are among al-Bukhari's narrators those for whom we do not find authentication, not only from al-Bukhari, but from anyone other than al-Bukhari. The scholars say at that time that al-Bukhari's citation of him in his Sahih is authentication of him.
The questioner : Yes, well done, correct.
The Shaykh : Authentication of him.
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : So whoever al-Bukhari cites, the necessary consequence is that he is trustworthy with him. But this does not mean that all of al-Bukhari's narrators were not authenticated outside the Sahih, just as the reverse does not mean that everyone al-Bukhari authenticated outside the Sahih narrated for him in the Sahih.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : There is no necessity between the two matters.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : In any case, we will look into the matter in the issue, and the issue has become clear, if Allah wills.
The questioner : Yes, may Allah reward you with good.
Abu Layla : Drink the tea, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : In my opinion, the use of "from" (the particle of narration) is included.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But the first is stronger, meaning if the chain of transmission is the same chain of transmission in all its narrators, from the Companion to Muslim's shaykh, without doubt this will be stronger in that it is on the condition of Muslim.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But this is not a necessary requirement. The narrators may differ, but it is required that there be no suspicion of disconnection or concealment of a defect (tadlis) or the like, so that the later scholar can say this hadith is on the condition of Muslim. The first form is stronger, and without doubt it is that the chain is the same, appearing outside Muslim as it is in Muslim. There are not a few hadiths of this kind in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and others. But if a narrator or more is missing and one of them took the place of the other, and he was like him in reliability, precision, and freedom from poor memory and similar defects, I see it permissible to state that it is on the condition of Muslim. This is how al-Hakim and others besides al-Hakim proceeded when they say this hadith is on the condition of Muslim; they do not always adhere to the first form. Likewise, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi and al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani, when they say that al-Dhahabi agreed with al-Hakim in authenticating it on the condition of Muslim. Perhaps you remember that they are lenient in their expression when, for example, the hadith in its chain contains Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Madani, the author of the Sirah, or Sharik ibn Abdullah al-Qadi. Al-Hakim says it is authentic on the condition of Muslim. It has been noted that there is leniency and laxity in this expression, because his statement that it is on the condition of Muslim is not precise unless one of the two men I named earlier was paired with another, because that is the condition of Muslim. Muslim did not cite Ibn Ishaq, nor did he cite the Qadi, but he narrated from them only when they were paired with others. So if among the narrators who are said to have a chain on the condition of Muslim there is not such a person, and Muslim cited him independently, then there is no objection at that time to saying that it is authentic on the condition of Muslim, even if the form of the chain differs in some layers from what is in Sahih Muslim in some hadiths.
The questioner : I mean, Shaykh, do you see that it is not required that the man be the same man in the conditionality of al-Bukhari and Muslim?
The Shaykh : This is the man.
The questioner : The form may differ.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : I think, Shaykh, the form differs if Muslim or al-Bukhari cited him absolutely, because there are narrators whom al-Bukhari or Muslim cite absolutely, meaning without being restricted to a specific chain or biography. And there are narrators whom al-Bukhari or Muslim cite in the form of conjunction. So it is valid in the first case, I think, but not in the second, is that not so?
The Shaykh : Where do we get that he is cited absolutely? We take from studying their Sahih and say so-and-so is one of al-Bukhari's narrators.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But we do not have a text that al-Bukhari cites him absolutely or conditionally, or that Muslim cites him absolutely or conditionally. Rather, from our examination of the narrators of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and our finding that they cite such people, we say that we also cite them. So if the chain of transmission is all of this weight withThe Shaykh : one of them, we say it is on the condition of al-Bukhari. But it is not required that the form be the form of the chain from beginning to end as found in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Your statement earlier was not clear that...
The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, this is to me...
The Shaykh : ... cited absolutely. Where do we take this from?
The questioner : By Allah, it seems to me, I mean, this is what I remember in the books of terminology, and what I remember now is that al-Hafiz established it in al-Nukat and distinguished between the form of conjunction and the form of independence. Perhaps for the trusted narrators agreed upon, it is assumed that al-Bukhari and Muslim cited them absolutely, or if al-Bukhari or Muslim authenticated this narrator or the like. As for those like Ibn Ishaq and others, they produced what was supported by other chains. So from this angle, I do not know, this is what was mentioned...
The Shaykh : Does al-Bukhari authenticate the man but not produce a hadith for him?
The questioner : No, there is not.
The Shaykh : I.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner : ... his absolute authentication, meaning that it is absolute.
The Shaykh : Does this not occur to your mind?
The questioner : No, it is in my mind, yes. But my intention is his absolute authentication, which is without restriction, indicates absolute citation, which is without restriction. I mean, if he authenticated the man and did not restrict him to the Shamites or to such-and-such or such-and-such, this restriction, if he authenticated him absolutely, means he is cited absolutely with him.
The Shaykh : My question is
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : How do we know that he authenticated him absolutely? From inside the Sahih or outside the Sahih?
The questioner : Generally, meaning...
The Shaykh : I mean, it is necessary that the authentication
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : be either from inside the Sahih as a practice, and not as a text.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Or it be from outside the Sahih as a text, and not as a practice.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is this clear?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Okay
The questioner : I say, meaning perhaps
The Shaykh : if the matter is so, if you allow me, if the matter is so, then either we say we know his authentication from inside the Sahih, so we say this is on his condition, and we do not have that he authenticated him absolutely. Or we say he authenticated him outside the Sahih, then the previous objection is raised: that the man may be authenticated outside the Sahih but not cited in the Sahih. So his authentication outside the Sahih does not necessitate his citation in the Sahih.
The questioner : Well, someone might say there is a necessity, because he did not require authenticity, he did not require collecting every authentic hadith in his Sahih. So there is no objection that this man whom he authenticated outside the Sahih is one he cites, but he did not include him because he included someone higher than him in his chapter.
The Shaykh : No problem, this is... not a point of disagreement.
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : The matter, may Allah reward you, is: from where do we say that this narrator whom he narrated from in the Sahih was authenticated absolutely? From where?
The questioner : I mean, if, perhaps, our Shaykh, I do not think they mentioned it. I have not come across anything of this.
The Shaykh : In any case.
The questioner : But
The Shaykh : The person mentions
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : what he has come across.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : What I know is that those whom al-Bukhari authenticates are of two categories.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : A category he cites in the Sahih, and a category he does not cite in the Sahih.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And there are among al-Bukhari's narrators those for whom we do not find authentication, not only from al-Bukhari, but from anyone other than al-Bukhari. The scholars say at that time that al-Bukhari's citation of him in his Sahih is authentication of him.
The questioner : Yes, well done, correct.
The Shaykh : Authentication of him.
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : So whoever al-Bukhari cites, the necessary consequence is that he is trustworthy with him. But this does not mean that all of al-Bukhari's narrators were not authenticated outside the Sahih, just as the reverse does not mean that everyone al-Bukhari authenticated outside the Sahih narrated for him in the Sahih.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : There is no necessity between the two matters.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : In any case, we will look into the matter in the issue, and the issue has become clear, if Allah wills.
The questioner : Yes, may Allah reward you with good.
Abu Layla : Drink the tea, O Shaykh.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.