Chapter on the validity of citing a hadith narrated with the phrase "from" (mu'anan) when it is possible that the narrators met and none of them was a deceiver (mudallis)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Reader: "And this statement, may Allah have mercy on you, regarding the criticism of chains of narration is an invented, newly introduced claim that has no precedent for its proponent, and no support from the scholars of knowledge. This is because the common, agreed-upon statement among the scholars of reports and narrations, both ancient and modern, is that every trustworthy man who narrates a hadith from a man like him, and for whom it is possible that he met him and heard from him because they were both in the same era, even if no report has ever come that they met or exchanged words, the narration is established and the argument by it is binding, unless there is clear evidence that this narrator did not meet the one from whom he narrated, or did not hear anything from him. As for the matter being ambiguous regarding the possibility we have explained, the narration is always considered to be by hearing until the evidence we have mentioned appears..."
The Shaykh : His statement, may Allah have mercy on him, undoubtedly contains a degree of recklessness. That the common, agreed-upon statement among the scholars of reports and narrations is as he says—there is no doubt in that it is recklessness. In fact, if the opposite were said, it would be closer to the truth. May Allah grant us assistance. Yes.
The Reader: "It is said to the inventor of this statement we have described, or to the one who defends it: You have granted in the general part of your statement that the report of one trustworthy man from one trustworthy man is an argument that obliges action. Then you introduced a condition afterwards, saying: 'Until we know that they met at least once or he heard something from him.' Do you find this condition you imposed in the statement of anyone? If not, then bring evidence for what you have claimed. If he claims that any of the scholars of the Salaf introduced this condition in establishing the report, he will be asked for it, and neither he nor anyone else will find a way to produce it."
The Shaykh : Huh? Respond to this statement.
The questioner : Is it fitting for a Muslim... al-Bukhari with this response?
The Shaykh : First, we ask: Does al-Bukhari condition meeting, or not? He conditions meeting. Is this statement from Muslim directed at those who condition meeting, or not? It is directed... He says that meeting is not a condition; if they were contemporaries, it is assumed that they met, unless there is evidence that they did not meet. This is a known matter.
The Reader: O Shaykh, in the commentary it said this. It mentioned in al-Nawawi's commentary that the intended ones are al-Bukhari, 'Ali ibn al-Madini, and a group, whom Muslim intended.
The Shaykh : This is known. Huh?
The questioner : Reporting about his bad intentions?
The Shaykh : May Allah grant us assistance. Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, even his statement regarding the weak narrators just now, that they want to increase and multiply, and the like—that is not permissible. Some of them may not intend this. We cannot judge every single person by this. May Allah grant us assistance. Yes.
The questioner : It appears... as al-Dhahabi mentioned, that he, may Allah have mercy on him, had sharpness in his character.
The Shaykh : We wish that there was no ill will in his heart, but in any case, we ask Allah for mercy for him. He was a scholar who exerted effort. Yes.
The Shaykh : His statement, may Allah have mercy on him, undoubtedly contains a degree of recklessness. That the common, agreed-upon statement among the scholars of reports and narrations is as he says—there is no doubt in that it is recklessness. In fact, if the opposite were said, it would be closer to the truth. May Allah grant us assistance. Yes.
The Reader: "It is said to the inventor of this statement we have described, or to the one who defends it: You have granted in the general part of your statement that the report of one trustworthy man from one trustworthy man is an argument that obliges action. Then you introduced a condition afterwards, saying: 'Until we know that they met at least once or he heard something from him.' Do you find this condition you imposed in the statement of anyone? If not, then bring evidence for what you have claimed. If he claims that any of the scholars of the Salaf introduced this condition in establishing the report, he will be asked for it, and neither he nor anyone else will find a way to produce it."
The Shaykh : Huh? Respond to this statement.
The questioner : Is it fitting for a Muslim... al-Bukhari with this response?
The Shaykh : First, we ask: Does al-Bukhari condition meeting, or not? He conditions meeting. Is this statement from Muslim directed at those who condition meeting, or not? It is directed... He says that meeting is not a condition; if they were contemporaries, it is assumed that they met, unless there is evidence that they did not meet. This is a known matter.
The Reader: O Shaykh, in the commentary it said this. It mentioned in al-Nawawi's commentary that the intended ones are al-Bukhari, 'Ali ibn al-Madini, and a group, whom Muslim intended.
The Shaykh : This is known. Huh?
The questioner : Reporting about his bad intentions?
The Shaykh : May Allah grant us assistance. Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, even his statement regarding the weak narrators just now, that they want to increase and multiply, and the like—that is not permissible. Some of them may not intend this. We cannot judge every single person by this. May Allah grant us assistance. Yes.
The questioner : It appears... as al-Dhahabi mentioned, that he, may Allah have mercy on him, had sharpness in his character.
The Shaykh : We wish that there was no ill will in his heart, but in any case, we ask Allah for mercy for him. He was a scholar who exerted effort. Yes.