A reading from Ibn Hajar’s commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, with the Shaykh’s annotations.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
"The reading is from Irsad al-Sari by al-Qastallani"
The reader: “I saw a ring of silver, with the ra’ broken, meaning silver, and the wording ‘I saw’ is not in al-Isma’ili’s narration. He said in al-Fath: So it seems to be from al-Bukhari, and this annotation is missing from Abu Dharr’s narration.”
The Shaykh : Only?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes? What is he saying?
“The reading is from Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari”
The reader: “His statement: ‘And Ibn Masfir said from al-Zuhri: I saw a ring of silver.’ This annotation I have not seen in the original of Abu Dharr’s narration, and it is established in the others except al-Nasafi. Abu Dawud also referred to it, and al-Isma’ili connected it through the route of Sa’id ibn ‘Ufayr from al-Layth from Ibn Masfir, who is ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid ibn Masfir, from Ibn Shihab from Anas, likewise, and it does not contain the wording ‘I saw,’ so it seems to be from al-Bukhari.
Al-Isma’ili said: Musa ibn ‘Uqbah and Ibn Abi ‘Utaiq also narrated it from Ibn Shihab likewise. Then he presented it through the route of Sulayman ibn Ballal from them, saying: like the hadith of Ibrahim ibn Sa’d. And in the hadith of the chapter is the haste of the Companions.”
The Shaykh : That is the apparent view, and Allah knows best. If the mention of silver is anomalous, because what occurred in it was that the Messenger threw it away and the people threw away their rings, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The gold ones, as for the silver ones. For this reason, al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) brought this annotation: ‘I saw a ring’ or ‘I see a ring.’ Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ... And what is he saying?
“The reading is from Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari”
The reader: “Al-Nawawi, following Iyadh, said: All the people of hadith, this is an error from Ibn Shihab, because what was thrown away was only the gold ring, and some of them interpreted it as will come.”
The Shaykh : Yes, and what... interpreted it?
The reader: Right?
The Shaykh : He interpreted it with what?
The reader: “I said: And the summary of the answers is three”
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: “The first, al-Isma’ili said it. He said after presenting it: If this report is preserved, its interpretation should be that he made a ring of silver in one of the colors and disliked that anyone else make one like it. So when they made them, he threw it away until they threw theirs away. Then he made what he made after that and engraved on it what he engraved to seal with.
The second: Al-Isma’ili also referred to it, that he made it for adornment. So when the people followed him in it, he threw it away. When he needed to seal, he made it to seal with. Al-Mahab al-Tabari affirmed this after narrating al-Muhallab’s statement and mentioning that it is forced. He said: The apparent from their situation is that they made them for adornment, so he threw his ring for them to throw theirs, then he wore it after that for the need to seal with it, and that continued. Al-Bayhaqi’s answer to that will come in the chapter on making a ring.
The third: Ibn Battal said: Ibn Shihab contradicted the narrations of Qatadah, Thabit, and ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Sahib regarding the fact that the silver ring remained in the hand of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to seal with, for the caliphs after him. So the ruling must be for the majority, even if al-Zuhri erred in it.
But al-Muhallab said: It is possible to interpret for Ibn Shihab what negates the error from him, even if the error is more apparent. That is because it is possible that when he intended to throw away the gold ring, he made the silver ring, as evidenced by the fact that he did not do without sealing letters to kings and others of the commanders and governors. So when he wore the silver ring, the people wanted to make one like it, so he threw away the gold ring at that time, and the people threw away their gold rings.
I said: And it is not hidden that this answer is... ”
The Shaykh : Very much.
The reader: “And what al-Isma’ili said” ..
The Shaykh : This is the weakest of what can be. After that. And the better one?
The reader: “And what al-Isma’ili said is closer, although it is flawed in that it necessitates making a silver ring twice. And Iyadh transmitted something like Ibn Battal’s statement, saying: Some said it is possible to reconcile it by saying that when he intended to prohibit the gold ring, he made a silver ring. So when he wore it, he showed it to the people on that day” ..
The Shaykh : He showed it.
The reader: “He showed it to the people on that day so they would know its permissibility. Then he threw away the gold ring and informed them of its prohibition, so the people threw away their gold rings. So his statement ‘he threw his ring and they threw their rings’ means those of gold.
And its summary is that he made the described thing in his statement ‘he threw his ring and they threw their rings’ the gold ring, even if it was not mentioned.
Iyadh said: And this is permissible if the narration came general. Then he referred to the fact that Ibn Shihab’s narration does not allow this interpretation.
As for al-Nawawi, he approved this interpretation and said: This is the correct interpretation, and there is nothing in the hadith that prevents it. He said: As for his statement ‘so the people made rings of silver and wore them, then he said ‘he threw his ring and they threw their rings,’ it is possible that when they knew (peace and blessings be upon him) intended to make a silver ring for himself, they made silver rings for themselves, and their gold rings remained with them as his remained with him until he replaced the silver ring and threw away the gold ring, so they replaced and threw away.
Al-Kirmani supported it by saying that it is not in the hadith that the thrown ring was of silver, but it is general, so it is attributed to the gold ring or to what was engraved with the engraving of his ring.
He said: And whenever reconciliation is possible, it is permissible to attribute error to the narrator” ..
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, yes.
The reader: “And whenever reconciliation is possible, it is permissible to attribute error” ..
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible. I mean the correct is it is not permissible, the correct is it is not permissible, there is no doubt in this.
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : This is not... .
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I say this is not moving.
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... permissible ... .
The Shaykh : Whenever reconciliation is possible, it is not permissible ... . Yes. It is not permissible to lower it, it is not permissible.
The questioner : It is not permissible?
The Shaykh : Yes. Whenever reconciliation is possible, it is not permissible to attribute error to the narrator, because the original state is the absence of error. Yes.
The reader: “I said: And a fourth aspect is possible, without change or addition of making, which is that he made the gold ring for adornment. So when the people followed him in it, it coincided with the occurrence of its prohibition, so he threw it away. And for that he said: and the people threw their rings following him, and he explicitly prohibited wearing the gold ring as mentioned in the previous chapter. Then he needed the ring for sealing with it, so he made it of silver and engraved his noble name in it. The people also followed him in that, so he threw it away until the people threw those rings engraved with his name, so that the benefit of the engraving of his name would not be lost by sharing. So when their rings were gone by throwing them, he returned to his specific ring and began to seal with it. His statement in the narration of ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Sahib from Anas, as will come shortly in the chapter of the ring on the little finger, points to that: ‘We made a ring and engraved on it an engraving, so let no one engrave on it.’ Perhaps some who did not reach the prohibition, or some who reached it but whose faith had not settled in their hearts, such as a hypocrite or the like, made and engraved, so what happened happened. And his throwing it away was anger at those who imitated him in that engraving. Al-Kirmani referred to that very briefly, and Allah knows best.
And al-Zuhri’s statement in his narration that he saw it in his hand one day does not contradict that, nor does it oppose his statement in the following chapter in the narration of Humayd: Anas was asked, ‘Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) make a ring?’ He said: ‘He delayed the night prayer of ‘Isha’ until he said: ‘It is as if I am looking at the shine of his ring.’ It is attributed to the fact that he saw it so... . That is enough.”
The Shaykh : Okay, in any case, even this answer is questionable.
The questioner : ... .
The reader: “I saw a ring of silver, with the ra’ broken, meaning silver, and the wording ‘I saw’ is not in al-Isma’ili’s narration. He said in al-Fath: So it seems to be from al-Bukhari, and this annotation is missing from Abu Dharr’s narration.”
The Shaykh : Only?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes? What is he saying?
“The reading is from Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari”
The reader: “His statement: ‘And Ibn Masfir said from al-Zuhri: I saw a ring of silver.’ This annotation I have not seen in the original of Abu Dharr’s narration, and it is established in the others except al-Nasafi. Abu Dawud also referred to it, and al-Isma’ili connected it through the route of Sa’id ibn ‘Ufayr from al-Layth from Ibn Masfir, who is ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid ibn Masfir, from Ibn Shihab from Anas, likewise, and it does not contain the wording ‘I saw,’ so it seems to be from al-Bukhari.
Al-Isma’ili said: Musa ibn ‘Uqbah and Ibn Abi ‘Utaiq also narrated it from Ibn Shihab likewise. Then he presented it through the route of Sulayman ibn Ballal from them, saying: like the hadith of Ibrahim ibn Sa’d. And in the hadith of the chapter is the haste of the Companions.”
The Shaykh : That is the apparent view, and Allah knows best. If the mention of silver is anomalous, because what occurred in it was that the Messenger threw it away and the people threw away their rings, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The gold ones, as for the silver ones. For this reason, al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) brought this annotation: ‘I saw a ring’ or ‘I see a ring.’ Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ... And what is he saying?
“The reading is from Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari”
The reader: “Al-Nawawi, following Iyadh, said: All the people of hadith, this is an error from Ibn Shihab, because what was thrown away was only the gold ring, and some of them interpreted it as will come.”
The Shaykh : Yes, and what... interpreted it?
The reader: Right?
The Shaykh : He interpreted it with what?
The reader: “I said: And the summary of the answers is three”
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: “The first, al-Isma’ili said it. He said after presenting it: If this report is preserved, its interpretation should be that he made a ring of silver in one of the colors and disliked that anyone else make one like it. So when they made them, he threw it away until they threw theirs away. Then he made what he made after that and engraved on it what he engraved to seal with.
The second: Al-Isma’ili also referred to it, that he made it for adornment. So when the people followed him in it, he threw it away. When he needed to seal, he made it to seal with. Al-Mahab al-Tabari affirmed this after narrating al-Muhallab’s statement and mentioning that it is forced. He said: The apparent from their situation is that they made them for adornment, so he threw his ring for them to throw theirs, then he wore it after that for the need to seal with it, and that continued. Al-Bayhaqi’s answer to that will come in the chapter on making a ring.
The third: Ibn Battal said: Ibn Shihab contradicted the narrations of Qatadah, Thabit, and ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Sahib regarding the fact that the silver ring remained in the hand of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to seal with, for the caliphs after him. So the ruling must be for the majority, even if al-Zuhri erred in it.
But al-Muhallab said: It is possible to interpret for Ibn Shihab what negates the error from him, even if the error is more apparent. That is because it is possible that when he intended to throw away the gold ring, he made the silver ring, as evidenced by the fact that he did not do without sealing letters to kings and others of the commanders and governors. So when he wore the silver ring, the people wanted to make one like it, so he threw away the gold ring at that time, and the people threw away their gold rings.
I said: And it is not hidden that this answer is... ”
The Shaykh : Very much.
The reader: “And what al-Isma’ili said” ..
The Shaykh : This is the weakest of what can be. After that. And the better one?
The reader: “And what al-Isma’ili said is closer, although it is flawed in that it necessitates making a silver ring twice. And Iyadh transmitted something like Ibn Battal’s statement, saying: Some said it is possible to reconcile it by saying that when he intended to prohibit the gold ring, he made a silver ring. So when he wore it, he showed it to the people on that day” ..
The Shaykh : He showed it.
The reader: “He showed it to the people on that day so they would know its permissibility. Then he threw away the gold ring and informed them of its prohibition, so the people threw away their gold rings. So his statement ‘he threw his ring and they threw their rings’ means those of gold.
And its summary is that he made the described thing in his statement ‘he threw his ring and they threw their rings’ the gold ring, even if it was not mentioned.
Iyadh said: And this is permissible if the narration came general. Then he referred to the fact that Ibn Shihab’s narration does not allow this interpretation.
As for al-Nawawi, he approved this interpretation and said: This is the correct interpretation, and there is nothing in the hadith that prevents it. He said: As for his statement ‘so the people made rings of silver and wore them, then he said ‘he threw his ring and they threw their rings,’ it is possible that when they knew (peace and blessings be upon him) intended to make a silver ring for himself, they made silver rings for themselves, and their gold rings remained with them as his remained with him until he replaced the silver ring and threw away the gold ring, so they replaced and threw away.
Al-Kirmani supported it by saying that it is not in the hadith that the thrown ring was of silver, but it is general, so it is attributed to the gold ring or to what was engraved with the engraving of his ring.
He said: And whenever reconciliation is possible, it is permissible to attribute error to the narrator” ..
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, yes.
The reader: “And whenever reconciliation is possible, it is permissible to attribute error” ..
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible. I mean the correct is it is not permissible, the correct is it is not permissible, there is no doubt in this.
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : This is not... .
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I say this is not moving.
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... permissible ... .
The Shaykh : Whenever reconciliation is possible, it is not permissible ... . Yes. It is not permissible to lower it, it is not permissible.
The questioner : It is not permissible?
The Shaykh : Yes. Whenever reconciliation is possible, it is not permissible to attribute error to the narrator, because the original state is the absence of error. Yes.
The reader: “I said: And a fourth aspect is possible, without change or addition of making, which is that he made the gold ring for adornment. So when the people followed him in it, it coincided with the occurrence of its prohibition, so he threw it away. And for that he said:
I will never wear it
لا ألبسه أبداAnd al-Zuhri’s statement in his narration that he saw it in his hand one day does not contradict that, nor does it oppose his statement in the following chapter in the narration of Humayd: Anas was asked, ‘Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) make a ring?’ He said: ‘He delayed the night prayer of ‘Isha’ until he said: ‘It is as if I am looking at the shine of his ring.’ It is attributed to the fact that he saw it so... . That is enough.”
The Shaykh : Okay, in any case, even this answer is questionable.
The questioner : ... .