"And the claimant who we began our discussion by relating his statement and reporting the poor quality of his narration
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: "And the claimant who we began our discussion by relating his statement and reporting the poor quality of his narration, claimed that any chain of narration for a hadith in which so-and-so narrates from so-and-so, and it is established that they lived in the same era, and it is possible that the hadith the narrator reported from the one he narrated from was heard from him and he was face-to-face with him regarding it, except that we do not know of any hearing from him, and we did not find in any of the narrations that they ever met or were face-to-face with each other regarding a hadith, that the proof does not stand for him with every report that comes in this manner, until he has knowledge that they met at some point in their lifetimes, or were face-to-face with each other regarding a hadith, or a report comes in which clarifies their meeting and encounter at some point in their lifetimes or more. If he does not have knowledge of that, and no authentic narration comes informing that this narrator from his companion met him once and heard something from him, then his transmission of the report from the one he narrated from, with the matter as we described, is not a proof, and the report is suspended for him"
The Shaykh : This is a name for a state, meaning: it was not a proof in transmitting the report from the one he narrated from, with the matter as we described, meaning he did not meet him and was not face-to-face with him, it was not a proof, yes.
The reader: "And the report was suspended for him until a report of his hearing from him of something of the hadith, little or much, comes in a narration like what has come"
The Shaykh : Who said this? This is the statement of al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is astonishing that Muslim would say this statement about his shaykh, although he is more correct than Muslim without doubt. Mere contemporaneity does not constitute a proof, because it is possible that there is an intermediary between them. This issue is divided into categories: The first category is mere contemporaneity.
The second category is the establishment of meeting.
Does this establish contemporaneity or not? It is even more so.
The third category is that he heard something from him, but it is not known that he heard this specific hadith.
The fourth category is that he heard this specific hadith from him. The fourth category is agreed upon to be a proof, and no one disagrees with this matter. The third category is also, according to the majority, a proof, because if it is established that he heard from him, the original presumption is that what he reported from him was heard. The second category is mere meeting, but it is not established that he heard this; it is based on good opinion, that he would not report from one he met except what he heard from him. The first category is the weakest of them. So Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) bases it on meeting and hearing, and al-Bukhari does not base it on meeting and hearing. For this reason, al-Bukhari's condition is more sound and more correct, as he conditions the validity of the hadith on meeting. And as you know, meeting means, rationally, one might say: it is not necessary that his meeting him entails him reporting to him; he might meet him and they discuss a hadith, or they might not discuss, or they might discuss a worldly matter. But despite that, for the sake of having good opinion of the narrators, we say: if his meeting is established and he reports from him with a wording that does not explicitly state that he reported to him or heard from him, it is based on hearing, yes.
The Shaykh :
It is a proof.
حجةThe reader: "And the report was suspended for him until a report of his hearing from him of something of the hadith, little or much, comes in a narration like what has come"
The Shaykh : Who said this? This is the statement of al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is astonishing that Muslim would say this statement about his shaykh, although he is more correct than Muslim without doubt. Mere contemporaneity does not constitute a proof, because it is possible that there is an intermediary between them. This issue is divided into categories: The first category is mere contemporaneity.
The second category is the establishment of meeting.
Does this establish contemporaneity or not? It is even more so.
The third category is that he heard something from him, but it is not known that he heard this specific hadith.
The fourth category is that he heard this specific hadith from him. The fourth category is agreed upon to be a proof, and no one disagrees with this matter. The third category is also, according to the majority, a proof, because if it is established that he heard from him, the original presumption is that what he reported from him was heard. The second category is mere meeting, but it is not established that he heard this; it is based on good opinion, that he would not report from one he met except what he heard from him. The first category is the weakest of them. So Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) bases it on meeting and hearing, and al-Bukhari does not base it on meeting and hearing. For this reason, al-Bukhari's condition is more sound and more correct, as he conditions the validity of the hadith on meeting. And as you know, meeting means, rationally, one might say: it is not necessary that his meeting him entails him reporting to him; he might meet him and they discuss a hadith, or they might not discuss, or they might discuss a worldly matter. But despite that, for the sake of having good opinion of the narrators, we say: if his meeting is established and he reports from him with a wording that does not explicitly state that he reported to him or heard from him, it is based on hearing, yes.