Did al-Bukhari narrate the hadith of musical instruments as connected or as suspended?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : A light question. I heard from some people interested in hadith a hadith in al-Bukhari regarding the prohibition of silk and musical instruments. They say that the well-known version is a suspended hadith, but in al-Bukhari it is connected. Is this statement correct?
The Shaykh : A suspended hadith, and it is connected in al-Bukhari?
The questioner : He says that the one who calls it suspended is mistaken, and that its chain in al-Bukhari is connected. I mean, does it matter that the one who says al-Bukhari suspended it?
The Shaykh : Yes, the issue here has details. I had addressed it, and praise be to Allah, I had addressed it in a treatise I wrote in response to Ibn Hazm regarding his permissibility of entertainments. I had lost that treatise, and a few days ago, praise be to Allah, I found it. Ibn Hazm claims the weakness of this hadith in al-Muhalla and in his treatise on entertainments, which is published. He claims a break in the chain on one hand and weakness in one of the narrators on the other. What concerns us now is the answer to whether this hadith is suspended or not. It is not hidden from our brothers present here, the people of knowledge, that a suspended hadith is a type of disconnected hadith. For example, if al-Bukhari says: Abu Hurayrah said, this is a suspended hadith. We go down a level: Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said, Abu Hurayrah said. This is a suspended hadith. We go down again: al-Zuhri said, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said, Abu Hurayrah said. This is also suspended. Like this, we keep going down until we reach al-Bukhari's shaykh. If al-Bukhari says, regarding one of his shaykhs, so-and-so said, and mentions the chain...The Shaykh : Is this suspended? They said this is not suspended. We said earlier that a suspended hadith is a type of disconnected hadith. So now, if al-Bukhari or anyone else generally, if al-Bukhari says, my shaykh so-and-so said such and such. I intentionally added "my shaykh" for the sake of exaggeration; he did not say "my shaykh" in this specific hadith. He said, Hisham ibn 'Ammar said. But it is known to Ibn Hazm and to other scholars and memorizers that Hisham ibn 'Ammar is one of al-Bukhari's shaykhs in the Sahih, and that in many of his hadiths, al-Bukhari says, Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to me, and he mentions the hadith with Hisham's chain to the Companion from whom he narrated it. So now, when al-Bukhari says, Hisham ibn 'Ammar said, here is the precision in the matter. Now, this is the form of the suspended hadith: Hisham ibn 'Ammar said. This form occurs very frequently in chains. One might say, for example, Shu'bah said, Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i said. Or one might say, Shu'bah from Abu Ishaq. Or one might say, Abu Ishaq narrated to me. Is there a difference between these three forms? Each of them narrates something from whom? From Shu'bah. The answer is no difference. Shall I reverse it? Abu Ishaq narrated to me, or he said from Abu Ishaq, or he said Abu Ishaq said. No difference. Why? Although the first form, Abu Ishaq narrated to me, means he heard it directly from him, and that is not the case with the other two forms when he says from Abu Ishaq or Abu Ishaq said. On the surface, yes, there is a difference between the first form where he explicitly states the narration and the other two forms. But this is a formal, superficial difference that has no effect whatsoever on the validity of Shu'bah's narration from Abu Ishaq in any form he narrated it: narrated to me, from, or said. Unless Shu'bah was a deceiver (tadlis). If Shu'bah was known for tadlis, then his saying "narrated to me" is on the head and eye (a strong claim), while his saying "from Abu Ishaq" or "Abu Ishaq said" carries no weight. Why? Because he was known for tadlis. And this is what happened to Abu Ishaq himself. Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i himself was a deceiver (tadlis). He narrated from al-Bara' ibn 'Azib and from others of the Companions, so this is not accepted from him upon investigation unless he explicitly states the narration. Why? Because he was a deceiver (tadlis); he would narrate from some of his shaykhs what he had not heard. So if we know this form, which is known in the science of terminology, we return to al-Bukhari. Here, hadith scholars like al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi and Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani and others respond to Ibn Hazm: al-Bukhari is not a deceiver (tadlis). Al-Bukhari is not known for tadlis. Some of the memorizers were known for tadlis, such as al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, for example, who was known to practice a type of tadlis that is not of this kind. He would disguise the names of his shaykhs; for example, a shaykh known by his name, he would use his kunya, or one known by his kunya, he would use his name, and so on. Al-Bukhari is not known for any of this tadlis. So whether al-Bukhari said, Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to me, or al-Bukhari said from Hisham, or al-Bukhari said Hisham said, al-Bukhari is not a deceiver (tadlis). So this hadith has the form of a suspended hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, but its reality is that it is connected. This is the first answer regarding the response to Ibn Hazm, who weakened the hadith. It is firmly in my mind that I said in that treatise: We concede to the dialectician Ibn Hazm, as a dialectical argument, that this is suspended. It does not harm us because it came connected through other routes besides al-Bukhari. They said: Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to us. So, done. So what matters to us if it is suspended in Sahih al-Bukhari. Then it does not harm us either regarding Hisham and what is hinted at in his narration, because it was said of him that he was taught and he would learn it, because he was supported by narrations from others besides Hisham. So there is no room to weaken this hadith. And those today, unfortunately, it saddens me to say, are from the jurists (mutafaqqihin), because whoever does not understand hadith is not a jurist. And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih Muslim 1037a What is the way to understanding religion in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him)? Abu Hanifah? People are dependent on Abu Hanifah in fiqh? There was no Abu Hanifah at that time. But perhaps they would agree with me if I said there is someone better than him!
Abu Malik : Yes, without a doubt.
The Shaykh : So where is fiqh taken from? From the Book of Allah and from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And finally, we say, and what was the practice of the righteous Salaf, the righteous Salaf. So these are the ones who issue rulings that contradict explicit texts, such as permitting entertainments. It just shouldn't be lewd, it should be what? Moist? Like that, in the heart, there is nothing. What do they call this?
Another questioner : ...the spirit...
The Shaykh : This is it. But it shouldn't be lewd. Allahu Akbar, O people. Ibn Hazm weakened the hadith. They fight Ibn Hazm and his rigidity with the fiercest fighting, but when they find that he issued them a fatwa that is good, what then?
Abu Malik : When he says, whoever urinates in stagnant water does not perform wudu.
The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar, there is no power and no strength except with Allah.
The Shaykh : A suspended hadith, and it is connected in al-Bukhari?
The questioner : He says that the one who calls it suspended is mistaken, and that its chain in al-Bukhari is connected. I mean, does it matter that the one who says al-Bukhari suspended it?
The Shaykh : Yes, the issue here has details. I had addressed it, and praise be to Allah, I had addressed it in a treatise I wrote in response to Ibn Hazm regarding his permissibility of entertainments. I had lost that treatise, and a few days ago, praise be to Allah, I found it. Ibn Hazm claims the weakness of this hadith in al-Muhalla and in his treatise on entertainments, which is published. He claims a break in the chain on one hand and weakness in one of the narrators on the other. What concerns us now is the answer to whether this hadith is suspended or not. It is not hidden from our brothers present here, the people of knowledge, that a suspended hadith is a type of disconnected hadith. For example, if al-Bukhari says: Abu Hurayrah said, this is a suspended hadith. We go down a level: Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said, Abu Hurayrah said. This is a suspended hadith. We go down again: al-Zuhri said, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said, Abu Hurayrah said. This is also suspended. Like this, we keep going down until we reach al-Bukhari's shaykh. If al-Bukhari says, regarding one of his shaykhs, so-and-so said, and mentions the chain...The Shaykh : Is this suspended? They said this is not suspended. We said earlier that a suspended hadith is a type of disconnected hadith. So now, if al-Bukhari or anyone else generally, if al-Bukhari says, my shaykh so-and-so said such and such. I intentionally added "my shaykh" for the sake of exaggeration; he did not say "my shaykh" in this specific hadith. He said, Hisham ibn 'Ammar said. But it is known to Ibn Hazm and to other scholars and memorizers that Hisham ibn 'Ammar is one of al-Bukhari's shaykhs in the Sahih, and that in many of his hadiths, al-Bukhari says, Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to me, and he mentions the hadith with Hisham's chain to the Companion from whom he narrated it. So now, when al-Bukhari says, Hisham ibn 'Ammar said, here is the precision in the matter. Now, this is the form of the suspended hadith: Hisham ibn 'Ammar said. This form occurs very frequently in chains. One might say, for example, Shu'bah said, Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i said. Or one might say, Shu'bah from Abu Ishaq. Or one might say, Abu Ishaq narrated to me. Is there a difference between these three forms? Each of them narrates something from whom? From Shu'bah. The answer is no difference. Shall I reverse it? Abu Ishaq narrated to me, or he said from Abu Ishaq, or he said Abu Ishaq said. No difference. Why? Although the first form, Abu Ishaq narrated to me, means he heard it directly from him, and that is not the case with the other two forms when he says from Abu Ishaq or Abu Ishaq said. On the surface, yes, there is a difference between the first form where he explicitly states the narration and the other two forms. But this is a formal, superficial difference that has no effect whatsoever on the validity of Shu'bah's narration from Abu Ishaq in any form he narrated it: narrated to me, from, or said. Unless Shu'bah was a deceiver (tadlis). If Shu'bah was known for tadlis, then his saying "narrated to me" is on the head and eye (a strong claim), while his saying "from Abu Ishaq" or "Abu Ishaq said" carries no weight. Why? Because he was known for tadlis. And this is what happened to Abu Ishaq himself. Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i himself was a deceiver (tadlis). He narrated from al-Bara' ibn 'Azib and from others of the Companions, so this is not accepted from him upon investigation unless he explicitly states the narration. Why? Because he was a deceiver (tadlis); he would narrate from some of his shaykhs what he had not heard. So if we know this form, which is known in the science of terminology, we return to al-Bukhari. Here, hadith scholars like al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi and Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani and others respond to Ibn Hazm: al-Bukhari is not a deceiver (tadlis). Al-Bukhari is not known for tadlis. Some of the memorizers were known for tadlis, such as al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, for example, who was known to practice a type of tadlis that is not of this kind. He would disguise the names of his shaykhs; for example, a shaykh known by his name, he would use his kunya, or one known by his kunya, he would use his name, and so on. Al-Bukhari is not known for any of this tadlis. So whether al-Bukhari said, Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to me, or al-Bukhari said from Hisham, or al-Bukhari said Hisham said, al-Bukhari is not a deceiver (tadlis). So this hadith has the form of a suspended hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, but its reality is that it is connected. This is the first answer regarding the response to Ibn Hazm, who weakened the hadith. It is firmly in my mind that I said in that treatise: We concede to the dialectician Ibn Hazm, as a dialectical argument, that this is suspended. It does not harm us because it came connected through other routes besides al-Bukhari. They said: Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to us. So, done. So what matters to us if it is suspended in Sahih al-Bukhari. Then it does not harm us either regarding Hisham and what is hinted at in his narration, because it was said of him that he was taught and he would learn it, because he was supported by narrations from others besides Hisham. So there is no room to weaken this hadith. And those today, unfortunately, it saddens me to say, are from the jurists (mutafaqqihin), because whoever does not understand hadith is not a jurist. And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
He upon whom Allah intends to bestow goodness, He confers upon him an insight in religion
من يرد الله به خيرا يفقّه في الدينAbu Malik : Yes, without a doubt.
The Shaykh : So where is fiqh taken from? From the Book of Allah and from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And finally, we say, and what was the practice of the righteous Salaf, the righteous Salaf. So these are the ones who issue rulings that contradict explicit texts, such as permitting entertainments. It just shouldn't be lewd, it should be what? Moist? Like that, in the heart, there is nothing. What do they call this?
Another questioner : ...the spirit...
The Shaykh : This is it. But it shouldn't be lewd. Allahu Akbar, O people. Ibn Hazm weakened the hadith. They fight Ibn Hazm and his rigidity with the fiercest fighting, but when they find that he issued them a fatwa that is good, what then?
Abu Malik : When he says, whoever urinates in stagnant water does not perform wudu.
The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar, there is no power and no strength except with Allah.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.