Commentary on the book *Takhrij of the Hadith of al-'Arba' ibn Sariyah* by Husayn ibn 'Abd al-Mannan, and the interjections of some of the attendees.

The questioner : Is that not the case, my Shaykh?

The Shaykh: How.
Abu Layla : The hadith of al-'Arba'...

The Shaykh : This is the follower of...

The questioner : A hadithic study of the hadith of al-'Arba'

The questioner : He says thatThe Shaykh : He said...

The Shaykh : So explain it to me...

The questioner : He says thatThe Shaykh : He said: "I wish my students would write something from which I could benefit. Is that correct?"

The Shaykh : And explain it to me?

The questioner : The first line.

The Shaykh : Listen to this statement. He says about me: "I answered him that the authentication of the lenient scholars is not considered if we know that the hadith has a defect that weakens it. I say, and this hadith was not authenticated by anyone except the lenient scholars among the early ones, and the later ones followed them in that, and they often follow without knowledge. Here is the detail of their statements." Now look at the detail. Number one, al-Tirmidhi...

The questioner : These are the lenient ones.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: These are the ones who followed without knowledge.

The Shaykh : No, rather it is the one who explicitly stated it. Yes, and there are two. No, he is speaking and detailing the statement. This is two: Ibn Hibban, three: al-Bazzar, four: al-Hakim, five: Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, six: Abu Nu'aym al-Isbahani, seven: Abu al-'Abbas al-Dahuli, eight: al-Baghawi...

The questioner : Among them are the lenient and among them are the strict.

The Shaykh : Nine: Ibn al-'Arabi, ten: al-Diya' al-Maqdisi, eleven: al-Dhahabi. I think this is the last of them... No, let this be aside. It is finished. What do you think of this arrogant, conceited person who accuses these scholars of following one another, while he is the independent jurist and he does not look further than the tip of his nose? And now look at the youth, and the truth of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) Look at this fool. We sat with him for an hour with Abu Malik, as we indicated to you. These eleven texts, we presented them to him and said to him, "How do you dare to weaken this hadith? These scholars explicitly authenticated it, and more than that, those who used this hadith as evidence did not explicitly state it, but they used it as evidence, and using it as evidence necessitates authentication. And not only that, but those who explained the hadith... how are you? Many things, and very many!"

The questioner : Ibn al-Qayyim built rules upon it...!

The Shaykh : He did so. So, after that session, and after we mentioned to him a rule we had mentioned to you, I wanted to let you hear his words, unfortunately. How is it that the poor man still does not know the rule that the affirming is preferred over the denying? Allahu Akbar...

The questioner : ...Upon whom, my Shaykh?

The Shaykh : What would the general public say when they do not see the chains of transmission?

Another questioner : A scholar.

The questioner : Not the general public, even the students of knowledge...

The Shaykh : Yes, do you hear what he says here? And I had sat withThe Shaykh : The honorable one refers to that night to research this hadith of al-'Arba' ibn Sariyah. So heThe Shaykh : addressed these chains of transmission and tried to prove to me that this chain is the chain of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Umar al-Sulami, valid and connected, because the hearing from Yahya ibn Abi al-Muta' is apparent. So I answered him. He admits that the hearing is apparent. Yahya ibn Abi al-Muta' says, "I heard al-'Arba'." He admits this because this is the reality. So I answered him at that time that Duhaym and others... this is page twenty-three, if you have it... So I answered him at that time that Duhaym and others denied that hearing. Look now at the deception in the expression: "Duhaym and others denied it." The implication of the plural form is three or more, and although there is a view that the minimum of the plural is two, what comes to the mind of the reader is? Three or more. And the reality is that there is no one but Duhaym, and another like him, no more. As it is said, "They denied that hearing in this narration, and they are the people of the craft. Listen now, and the people of his land, and those who know him and his narrations best, for they are more knowledgeable about whether he heard or did not hear..." Listen here to the dispute around this rule. So heThe Shaykh : then moved to a matter I was surprised he addressed. He said, "The narration is apparent hearing, so it is an affirmation, and the other side is a denial, so we prefer the affirming over the denying based on the famous usuli rule." So I said, "As for me, I do not accept this rule in its absolute form, for it is necessary to weigh the narrations first, and then if they are equal, we return to the affirming for preference, not certainty, and so on." This is what a scholar says. And the statement in the principles, as I mentioned to you earlier on this occasion, is to reconcile the different narrations first, and to reconcile them by one of those many ways. If reconciliation is not possible, then to seek the abrogating from the abrogated. If that is not possible, then weighing. He made weighing the third rank, so he made it the first rank. So if a narration comes like this, where the trustworthy narrator, indeed the reliable one, says, "I heard al-'Arba'," and a later one says, "He did not hear," well, in his opinion, we must do a comparison. What is a comparison? Which of the two narrations is more established? Well, Subhan Allah, he admits that Yahya ibn Abi al-Muta', who said, "I heard," has a valid chain to him. And suppose Duhaym and others also have a valid chain to them, what room is there for weighing here!

The questioner : This indicates a defect in Yahya ibn Abi al-Muta' that he is lying in his statement, "I heard."

The Shaykh : No, we do not say that. In fact, we do not resort to this resort. We say, as Imam al-Bukhari said in the story of Bilal, when it was mentioned that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed inside the Ka'bah and Ibn 'Abbas denied that. Al-Bukhari said, "Every reliable person is a proof over the one who did not know." So if Duhaym is trustworthy, and he is indeed a memorizer, but we do not say to him, "Why did you not know the hearing of Yahya ibn Abi al-Muta' from al-'Arba'?" That is what reached him of knowledge. We do not lie or accuse. Therefore, this rule came: "The affirming is preferred over the denying," and "The one who knows is a proof over the one who does not know." Hundreds of texts. This is its explanation. So this poor, ignorant, conceited person, with the little knowledge he has, set rules for himself and proceeded from them, and he goes east and west. And this is his example here. The issue does not require weighing between the one who said, "I heard," and the one who said, "He did not hear," because he is the one with the connection. He is the reliable Tabi'i, without dispute, who said, "I heard al-'Arba'." We say to him, "You lied," because so-and-so, who came after him by a century or two, did not hear? The least that can be said is that we err in the reliable one who said, "I heard," simply because someone said, "He did not hear." This is one of the misfortunes of the times!
Abu Layla : I do not know now... pages in the book of Jihad...

The Shaykh : The copy is not that one. This is a new copy.
Abu Layla : I do not know.

The Shaykh : Is this one photographed?
Abu Layla : Yes. If it is not the previous one. What does the absence of the date mean? Is the statementThe Shaykh : before, or is this statement before?

The Shaykh : In any case, review that copy.
Abu Layla : Yes, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : ...Insha'Allah, yes.

The questioner : Is this being printed, my Shaykh?

The Shaykh : I think his eminence will compel him to do so!

The questioner : He spoke about the system in the introduction...

Another questioner : The system shared in the topic with him!

The Shaykh : And this is the problem of problems, and the poor man is still with him.
Abu Layla : My Shaykh... he has words about this topic...

The Shaykh : And I say to him...

The questioner : My Shaykh, I do not like to speak, but I do not count myself among those who sit with me in these issues!

The Shaykh : How do you not count yourself?

The questioner : I mean, for example, the brother Husayn sat with me for several sessions. He visited me at home and spoke with me about these issues. And he told me to visit him, so I visited him and looked at the references he refers to, and I found that they are books of the later scholars of knowledge. These are the references. And the discussion revolved around 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami and what I mentioned. So he says, "Yes, I say it is preferred, but after we establish whether he heard or did not hear, as you mentioned now. How does that mean? Why did the scholars state that so-and-so heard or did not hear? What is the benefit of them saying that he did not hear? And many hadiths were taken based on the fact that so-and-so did not hear from so-and-so who informed us. The statement of the scholars who know his condition, from the people of his land!"

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. This statement is said in the case where the reliable narrator did not explicitly state the hearing.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I think you know, as he knows, and every student of knowledge knows, that the reliable narrator known for deception (tadlis) is not used as evidence for his hadith if he does not explicitly state the narration...

The questioner : The hearing.

The Shaykh : Well, the hearing. And if he explicitly states the hearing, what do the scholars say? If he explicitly states the hearing, the hadith is not evidence.

The questioner: Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : What about a narrator who was not accused and not suspected of deception, who says, "I heard"!

The questioner : The testimony of no one is accepted!

The Shaykh : The testimony of whom?

The questioner : in other cases, because he was not accused of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) and then he explicitly stated that he heard it.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : so one does not take from him.

The Shaykh : so one does not take the statement of the one who denies having heard it.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : This is what the man did, and Allah is the Helper. If he is one of you, this one who sprang from your land, he was able, through his deception and the smoothness of his tongue, to gather some people around him, and among them may be some shaykhs. And this is our neighbor who was afflicted with deviation—peace and mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you—and there may be some shaykhs and doctors who are deceived by him. So what about this man who is researching a science in which few delve? Now you are transmitting this statement from him. What is the value of this statement as long as the narrator says, "I heard it," and he is not a mudallis (one who conceals a defect in a chain)? Even if he were a mudallis and he explicitly stated the transmission, the suspicion of tadlis would be removed. So how is it when he is not a mudallis? You did not pay attention to my reading. He does not understand the rule that the affirmative takes precedence over the negative!

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, ah, he is...
Last: He was amazed by...

The Shaykh : It is as you heard his words, meaning the problem of problems is that today I will have to say that I am researching with boys!

The questioner : Our Shaykh, their objection with the tapes is thatThe Shaykh : it does not allow room for discussion. You speak and they bind us to points, so to speak, they say it is like a siege.The Shaykh : When he speaks to us, sit and wait, I will tell you and answer with such-and-such. He said, "I..." Even I heard him on the tape speaking at Abu Ahmad's place. Some excerpts from the tape, and he was fixing the condition of the tape. So the last thing he said to you was, "Shaykh, let us, our Shaykh, let me speak. Whenever I have something, then comment on it if you wish!"

The Shaykh : Okay, what do you think? Everyone has this message. Listen, he has this message. We keep the night awake listening to his message?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Okay, what does this mean!

The questioner : The discussion...

The Shaykh : And then, my brother, they transmitted to you some of the words, and this is the affair of the falsifiers, like those who say, "The Lord of the Worlds said: "

The questioner : Shaykh, he cannot speak a word in front of us that diminishes the value of your knowledge. We do not allow him or anyone else!

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah bless you. I said to my brothers, the first thing he did when he sat down was to elevate me to the sky, and the tape is available. He said that I admitted that if I have any knowledge, I benefited from your books, and without your books, I would be nothing worth mentioning. He even said he exposedThe Shaykh : Shu'ayb, who is his Shaykh, and he said,The Shaykh : Shu'ayb admits to this witness. May Allah bless you. He transmitted something and denied or was silent about something. I say to everyone who wants to discuss: My brother, speak as much as you wish. But I have a suggestion. If you ask me, "Is this a cup or a glass?" do not give a lecture. And then... surely, ask an expert about this. I have associated with and debated atheists, disbelievers, Ba'athists, communists, and members of various parties and groups. So I say, my brother, I am asking you: Is the sun up or not? Do not give a lecture. Just say, "It is up." And if I need you to explain it to me, I will say, "May Allah reward you with good, explain it to me." And if your answer agrees with what I have, why do you want to waste my time and your time? Ah, so now...

The questioner : Our Shaykh, I heard this in a discussion with our brother Murad. If I tell you, answer me with such-and-such...

The Shaykh : This is it, and therefore he was unable to delve and roam. And on this occasion, it reminded me. Tell him thatThe Shaykh : he is waiting for you!
Abu Layla : He wanted to come and tell me... honestly, our Shaykh... he takes the tapes and listens to them...

Another questioner : He heard them with me!
Abu Layla : So that he knows... your style... do not blame me. I did not sit with our brothers. We sit with some of the innovators or some of the Islamic parties. They follow the pathThe Shaykh : in discussion, as is not hidden. If you raise an issue... a third, fourth, and fifth issue.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Abu Layla : The research ended without anything, any discussion... styleThe Shaykh : ... the first question, do not enter... the council...

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Abu Layla : ... we discuss him. The problem is that he does not agree withThe Shaykh : that he is accustomed to... and so on and so on, andThe Shaykh ... .

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : He is a student...

Another questioner : ... I brought the tapes from Abu Ahmad and I called Murad and said to him, "Come, listen. Now I have them." So he listened to them. Then he took the tapes, and I and he went to Amman, and he bought the book Sharh al-Asnawi fi al-Usul (Al-Asnawi's Commentary on the Principles of Jurisprudence)...

The Shaykh : May Allah guide him... look at this, and he said...

Another questioner : The student of knowledgeThe Shaykh : He told him to read in the principles. He said, "I know the principles. By Allah, I will prove to the Shaykh that I understand the principles." He went to Amman, he looked for books, and he looked for rare books on the principles... Of course, our Shaykh, he has knowledge in the principles. I sat with him and studied with him knowledge in the principles. I studied with him some matters. He has many references in the principles and always researches in them. Most of his reading is in the Alfiyyah (the Thousand Verses) and its commentaries, plus commentaries on the principles. So he went and bought books on the principles, and now he does not sit. In our recent sitting in speech, he keeps commenting. So I said...
Abu Layla : ... discuss, our Shaykh...

The questioner : . Comments on the pauses in the Qur'an...

The Shaykh: Yes.

Another questioner : He brought books by the scholars on pauses in the Qur'an and such, and it became, meaning, I... He did not notice us, but I... because I heard the tape alone. You are now contradictingThe Shaykh : but you see that you are taking what he told you. Admit it, Shaykh Murad. So he started laughing...

Another questioner : Shaykh, if you were asked, what would you say about Hassan 'Abd al-Mannan... illusions, abandoned...

The Shaykh : I would say he is an ignorant, arrogant person!

Another questioner : An ignorant, arrogant person.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

Another questioner : He has a suggestion.