Imitating al-Ghazali of Ibn Hazm in his attribution of the hadith of musical instruments to a broken chain.

Al-Halabi : Regarding the topic of al-Bukhari’s hadith, my teacher, there are two wonders. One is related to the imitator, who is Ibn Hazm, and one is related to the imitator, who is al-Ghazali. The first thing, my teacher, is that when Ibn Hazm criticized the hadith for being disconnected, he did not address the biography of Hisham ibn 'Ammar, but rather said that this hadith is disconnected; there is no connection between al-Bukhari and Sadaqah ibn Khalid, who is the teacher of Hisham ibn 'Ammar, our teacher. Al-'Ayni and al-'Iraqi, along with many scholars, pointed out this. However, what is famous in people’s minds about him is that he said regarding Hisham ibn 'Ammar—otherwise, what he established in *al-Muhallá*, which is the most common among people—is that he said it was not disconnected between al-Bukhari and Sadaqah ibn Khalid, and in the middle before Sadaqah

The Shaykh : it was not connected.
Al-Halabi : It was not connected. My intention is that between al-Bukhari and Sadaqah ibn Khalid, he is the teacher of al-Bukhari’s teacher, not his teacher. In this statement, there is an affirmation of the statement, my teacher, that you mentioned. Ibn al-Qayyim comments, saying: "And al-Bukhari is the furthest of Allah’s creation from concealment of defects in a chain," with this beautiful phrase.

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
Al-Halabi : This is the first thing, my teacher. And the second thing regarding al-Ghazali in this book is that he has a very strange philosophy that no one preceded him in. What does he say? He says: "Perhaps the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) intended by this hadith the parts of the image gathered together."

The Shaykh : No, this has been preceded.
Al-Halabi : Preceded, my teacher. Do you mean if we spoke about this point?

The Shaykh : This statement is invalid. Why? For two reasons. The first reason is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): they make lawful, and every Arab understands that the meaning of "they make lawful" is that the thing made lawful was originally forbidden. So when he says: all these things are known to be forbidden in themselves, yet they make them lawful. So the fourth item, which is conjoined to its predecessor, is also forbidden. First, because it falls under the generality of his saying: "they make lawful," meaning it is forbidden and they make it lawful. Second, by the indication of conjunction. Although the scholars have a discussion here that the indication of conjunction is weak. Well, if it is weak, we say it is set aside and has no value. But his saying: this is the greatest evidence that these four things are forbidden. It might be said that this severe warning is regarding the form, regarding the group. But it cannot be said that this group is forbidden, but if we separate some of them from others, some remain permissible. This cannot be said; this is a denial of the text.
Al-Halabi : My teacher, who remembers the precedent, meaning the precedent is in his mind now, and...?

The Shaykh : No, I do not remember it specifically, but it was said about it, meaning...