If the path of *irsal* (omitting the Companion) in a hadith is stronger than the connected path, is it considered a defect that invalidates it, or is it considered a case of the addition of a trustworthy narrator?

The questioner : If the path of *irsal* (omitting the Companion) in a hadith is stronger than the connected path.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : If *irsal* (omitting the Companion) is stronger.

The Shaykh : I did not understand.
The student : Stronger, meaning.

The questioner : If *irsal* (omitting the Companion) is stronger.

The Shaykh : *Irsal* (omitting the Companion) is stronger.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : In a hadith, over the connected path, is it considered a defect that invalidates it, or is it considered a case of the addition of accepted trustworthy narrators?

The Shaykh : Is it considered what?

The questioner : A defect that invalidates it, or is it considered a case of the addition of a trustworthy narrator.

The Shaykh : How does this question proceed with the introduction, because... the question is: is it considered a defect that invalidates it? If it is considered a defect that invalidates it, it is not considered an addition from a trustworthy narrator.

The questioner : The withdrawal is easy for me because it was written for me.

The Shaykh : Ah, and yes.

The questioner : It requires reflection.

The Shaykh : I mean, you are not a narrator, I mean, in our Levantine dialect, we call them storytellers. In any case, the intent is clear. This *mursal* (hadith missing the Companion link) or this hadith that was narrated in both forms, *mursal* and *musnad* (connected to the Prophet), *mursal* and *musnad*. Either the stronger position is *irsal* (omitting the Companion), in which case the *musnad* is dropped and it becomes defective, and at that point the question of whether it is a case of the addition of a trustworthy narrator does not arise, because this addition is the weaker position and *irsal* is the stronger position. Or if we reverse it and say no, this is a case of the addition of a trustworthy narrator, and the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted, then at that point it is not correct to say that the stronger position is the *mursal*. It is necessary to distinguish between the two matters completely. If one is established, the other is lifted; if the other is established, the first is lifted, and so on.

The questioner : If the *irsal* (omitting the Companion) is more authentic, and that connected one is sound, the *irsal* is more authentic and the connected one is sound. Is the connected one an addition of a trustworthy narrator or not?

The Shaykh : No, stay in your place, stay in your place, my son, you have the floor.
The student : This is with a difference in wording, meaning.

The Shaykh : With a difference?
The student : A difference in wording, with the path not being the same, meaning, the one who narrated it as *mursal* is not the one who narrated it as connected by the same path.

The Shaykh : No, it may be, it may be, may Allah bless you.
The student : This is a stronger defect to weaken one of them, either the *mursal* or the connected one.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, the *mursal* and *musnad* hadiths may both revolve around one single person.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Therefore, it is not necessary for the path to be different, the path being different from the *mursal* narrator or from the *musnad* narrator. For example, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, the hadith came from him, he said: Abu Hurayrah said, the Messenger of Allah said. It came from another person, not the first one, from Sa'id, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said. The path is two paths to one person. It may come as *mursal* from one angle. This is a matter that takes another form. The text of the same hadith may come from two different paths. Completely, one is *mursal* and there is no *mursal* contradicting it, and the other is *musnad*. The question does not arise in such a case at all. On the contrary, the *mursal* becomes strong by the *musnad*, even if it is weak, on the condition that it is not very weak. As for the first case, it is a *mursal* and a *musnad* from the same person, but it came from two paths, and we assume them to be sound now. One says, from the *mursal* narrator, the Messenger of Allah said. The other says, from this *mursal* narrator: Abu Hurayrah said, the Messenger of Allah said. Here, one looks at the chain to this narrator, which one is more trustworthy, which one is more authentic, that will be the stronger position. Therefore, whether the research is as we understood earlier, or as the doctor intended to illustrate earlier, the answer is clear. Completely, if one hadith comes from a trustworthy man, and the two narrators from him differ by one making it *mursal* and the other making it *musnad*, the ruling is for the one who is more trustworthy and has better memory, or if they are equal, the ruling is for the one with more narrations. As for the other case, this is another matter.

The questioner : Perhaps the first case is that one of them strengthens the other.

The Shaykh : The other case, yes.

The questioner : The second one.

The Shaykh : Yes.