Did you meet Shaykh al-Uthaymeen? And a query from Ali Hasan regarding the hadith (My Ummah is like the rain).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: Shaykh, did you meetThe Shaykh : Muhammad ibn al-Uthaymeen in an academic gathering or a public gathering?
The Shaykh: It was an honor for us that he visited us in Makkah while I was staying at my brother-in-law’s house, Dr. Rida Nu'asan. I think he visited us there on some occasions, yes.
The questioner: Did you meet him on any occasion other than this one?
The Shaykh: By Allah, I do not remember any occasion other than this one.
The questioner: It seems he told me that you passed through Unayzah and Buraydah some time ago...
The Shaykh: That is true, but I do not think I met him.
The questioner: Perhaps you drank coffee in his house?
The Shaykh: I do not remember that. Did he state that?
The questioner: Yes, he said he came, and said that Zuhayr al-Shawish was with you.
The Shaykh: Yes, I tell you I passed through those lands and indeed Zuhayr al-Shawish was with me, but perhaps at that time I was not aware ofThe Shaykh : as he should have been, so his memory did not remain in my mind, unlike when he visited me there, for I remember that well. He was with some students, and one of them asked me a question related to the science of hadith and terminology. And I am truly impressed by his demeanorThe Shaykh : and his gentleness and his proper conduct, to the extent that he departed from the taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) that has settled upon the masses of scholars in all lands, as far as he was able to do so.
Al-Halabi: Shaykh, the hadith here is the same wording as al-Suyuti’s own statement. He said: The hadith of Ali was narrated by Abu Ya'la, as in al-Jami'.
The Shaykh: But that is how it is.
Al-Halabi : Yes.
The Shaykh: Who narrated it?
Al-Halabi: Abu Ya'la, as in al-Jami'.
The Shaykh: And did you check Abu Ya'la?
Al-Halabi: Nor in his Mu'jam (dictionary of narrators), and al-Hafiz did not attribute it to him in al-Matalib, nor al-Haythami in al-Jami', nor any of these scholars. May Allah know best.
The Shaykh: Well, did you check al-Jami' al-Kabir of al-Suyuti?
Al-Halabi: It is the same thing.
The Shaykh: The same thing!
Al-Halabi: Yes, and al-Suyuti, Shaykh, transmits it in his treatise on the Khirka (cloak) to prove the hearing of al-Hasan ibn Ali, and he says: It is stated in Tadhhib al-Tadhhib. And Tadhhib al-Tadhhib does not have it either. I checked all its sources, it is not there. And although its chain of narration, it seems from its appearance, is attributed to Abu Ya'la, because they brought its chain: Hawsala ibn Ashras narrated to us from so-and-so, its chain appears to be valid in itself. And al-Hafiz in al-Fath says: The hadith is hasan (a good hadith) for other reasons...
The Shaykh: Here the final question arises: Did they say "Abu Ya'la narrated it in his Musnad," or did they speak generally?
Al-Halabi: They said: Abu Ya'la said, Abu Ya'la narrated it.
The Shaykh: Then the problem is resolved. We cannot deny it. Do you want to check his Mu'jam al-Shuyukh (dictionary of narrators)?
Al-Halabi: I checked it, Shaykh. I told you I checked it. I have Mu'jam al-Shuyukh and I checked it, and it is not there.
The Shaykh: Well, did you check the titles of Abu Ya'la’s books?
Al-Halabi: No.
The Shaykh: I mean, a negation like this is one of the most difficult things. A person has to toil and work hard, yes. I imagine it might be a mistake; but we cannot say it is a mistake unless we exhaust the review of Abu Ya'la’s books. His Musnad is the large and the small. The small one exists, and the large one is lost. Mu'jam al-Shuyukh exists, it is photographed, and there is no other book of his.
Al-Halabi: In al-Mufaridat, and it is not in al-Mufaridat either.
The Shaykh: It is not there.
Al-Halabi: The condition of al-Mufaridat is the Companions with few narrations, the hadiths of the Companions with few narrations.
The Shaykh: Yes, may Allah know best. In any case, I do not think a major thing is built upon...
Al-Halabi: No, no, a major thing is not built upon it, but in the context of refuting al-Ghamari, I had mentioned it.
The questioner: This one you have, what will you do with it?
The Shaykh: Initially, put it in the box, and if an opportunity arises to refer to it, do so.
The questioner: Well, the one you checked, can you help us identify the one you agreed with?
The Shaykh: No, it is not possible; because agreement does not occur except after study, yes. And study, according to our methodology, our scientific methodology, means, for example, when he says that this hadith is valid, its chain is weak, but it has a corroborating narration from the path of so-and-so and so-and-so. Al-Tabarani narrated it from the path of so-and-so. Ah, the path of so-and-so might, if the chain to him is valid, be a corroborating narration, but perhaps al-Tabarani’s shaykh is missing. What is its value? This requires research, it requires review.
The Shaykh: It was an honor for us that he visited us in Makkah while I was staying at my brother-in-law’s house, Dr. Rida Nu'asan. I think he visited us there on some occasions, yes.
The questioner: Did you meet him on any occasion other than this one?
The Shaykh: By Allah, I do not remember any occasion other than this one.
The questioner: It seems he told me that you passed through Unayzah and Buraydah some time ago...
The Shaykh: That is true, but I do not think I met him.
The questioner: Perhaps you drank coffee in his house?
The Shaykh: I do not remember that. Did he state that?
The questioner: Yes, he said he came, and said that Zuhayr al-Shawish was with you.
The Shaykh: Yes, I tell you I passed through those lands and indeed Zuhayr al-Shawish was with me, but perhaps at that time I was not aware ofThe Shaykh : as he should have been, so his memory did not remain in my mind, unlike when he visited me there, for I remember that well. He was with some students, and one of them asked me a question related to the science of hadith and terminology. And I am truly impressed by his demeanorThe Shaykh : and his gentleness and his proper conduct, to the extent that he departed from the taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) that has settled upon the masses of scholars in all lands, as far as he was able to do so.
Al-Halabi: Shaykh, the hadith here is the same wording as al-Suyuti’s own statement. He said: The hadith of Ali was narrated by Abu Ya'la, as in al-Jami'.
The Shaykh: But that is how it is.
Al-Halabi : Yes.
The Shaykh: Who narrated it?
Al-Halabi: Abu Ya'la, as in al-Jami'.
The Shaykh: And did you check Abu Ya'la?
Al-Halabi: Nor in his Mu'jam (dictionary of narrators), and al-Hafiz did not attribute it to him in al-Matalib, nor al-Haythami in al-Jami', nor any of these scholars. May Allah know best.
The Shaykh: Well, did you check al-Jami' al-Kabir of al-Suyuti?
Al-Halabi: It is the same thing.
The Shaykh: The same thing!
Al-Halabi: Yes, and al-Suyuti, Shaykh, transmits it in his treatise on the Khirka (cloak) to prove the hearing of al-Hasan ibn Ali, and he says: It is stated in Tadhhib al-Tadhhib. And Tadhhib al-Tadhhib does not have it either. I checked all its sources, it is not there. And although its chain of narration, it seems from its appearance, is attributed to Abu Ya'la, because they brought its chain: Hawsala ibn Ashras narrated to us from so-and-so, its chain appears to be valid in itself. And al-Hafiz in al-Fath says: The hadith is hasan (a good hadith) for other reasons...
The Shaykh: Here the final question arises: Did they say "Abu Ya'la narrated it in his Musnad," or did they speak generally?
Al-Halabi: They said: Abu Ya'la said, Abu Ya'la narrated it.
The Shaykh: Then the problem is resolved. We cannot deny it. Do you want to check his Mu'jam al-Shuyukh (dictionary of narrators)?
Al-Halabi: I checked it, Shaykh. I told you I checked it. I have Mu'jam al-Shuyukh and I checked it, and it is not there.
The Shaykh: Well, did you check the titles of Abu Ya'la’s books?
Al-Halabi: No.
The Shaykh: I mean, a negation like this is one of the most difficult things. A person has to toil and work hard, yes. I imagine it might be a mistake; but we cannot say it is a mistake unless we exhaust the review of Abu Ya'la’s books. His Musnad is the large and the small. The small one exists, and the large one is lost. Mu'jam al-Shuyukh exists, it is photographed, and there is no other book of his.
Al-Halabi: In al-Mufaridat, and it is not in al-Mufaridat either.
The Shaykh: It is not there.
Al-Halabi: The condition of al-Mufaridat is the Companions with few narrations, the hadiths of the Companions with few narrations.
The Shaykh: Yes, may Allah know best. In any case, I do not think a major thing is built upon...
Al-Halabi: No, no, a major thing is not built upon it, but in the context of refuting al-Ghamari, I had mentioned it.
The questioner: This one you have, what will you do with it?
The Shaykh: Initially, put it in the box, and if an opportunity arises to refer to it, do so.
The questioner: Well, the one you checked, can you help us identify the one you agreed with?
The Shaykh: No, it is not possible; because agreement does not occur except after study, yes. And study, according to our methodology, our scientific methodology, means, for example, when he says that this hadith is valid, its chain is weak, but it has a corroborating narration from the path of so-and-so and so-and-so. Al-Tabarani narrated it from the path of so-and-so. Ah, the path of so-and-so might, if the chain to him is valid, be a corroborating narration, but perhaps al-Tabarani’s shaykh is missing. What is its value? This requires research, it requires review.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.