How do you respond to al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, who says: "The hadith scholars known for tadlis did not use the word 'qala' (said) in tadlis as they used 'an' (from)"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Well, our Shaykh, may Allah preserve you, here is a question regarding Ibn Jurayj's "an'anah" from Ata, which is one of the issues you deferred discussing when we spoke about Ibn Jurayj. When he narrated from Ata, you mentioned in *Al-Silsilah al-Sahihah* that he said: "When I say: Ata said, it is what I heard from him". And you asked a question, you raised a question: if he says "from Ata," does it hold this same status? Then you preferred and leaned toward the view that they are equal in this regard.
And I came across a statement mentioned by al-Hafiz in *Hadi al-Sari* and in the book *Tughliq al-Ta'liq* from al-Khatib, who says: "The hadith scholars known for tadlis did not use the word 'qala' (said) in tadlis as they used 'an' (from)". So he said that among the *mudallis* (those who practice tadlis), it is not well-known for tadlis; he meant to mention this in defense of Imam al-Bukhari when Ibn Manda described him as a *mudallis* because he says "from some of his shaykhs, so-and-so said," and in some other narrations he says "I was told from so-and-so." He said he is a *mudallis*. He said no; the defense of al-Bukhari is that the word "qala" (said) was not known in the custom of the *mudallis* as a usage.
The Shaykh : From
The questioner : Like "an" (from), so the analogy of "an" (from) to "qala" (said) in this case
The Shaykh : Is not applicable
The questioner : Ah, it is not applicable, or with a difference? Yes.
The Shaykh : With a difference, but it is not applicable. Well, if we accept this initially, if a *mudallis* says "qala" (said), do we distinguish?
The questioner : No, for one known for tadlis, we do not distinguish. We do not distinguish.
The Shaykh : So why do we distinguish sometimes and not distinguish other times?
The questioner : Are you asking me now?
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : You are asking me now; I thought you would answer after him.
The Shaykh : No, no, I am asking based on what you quoted.
The questioner : Well, what became clear to me from al-Hafiz's words is that the ruling of tadlis is not established for a man merely because he used the word "qala" (said).
The Shaykh : I understood.
The questioner : Yes, yes. As for one known for tadlis, if he says "an" (from), "dhakara" (mentioned), or "haddatha" (narrated), and all the possible expressions that imply ambiguity, they are interpreted as
The Shaykh : Ibn Jurayj is known for tadlis.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : So if he says "an" (from), we should avoid his narration because he is a *mudallis*.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : But if he says "Ata said," we do not avoid him.
The questioner : We do not avoid him, yes.
The Shaykh : Well, this distinction requires us to do the exact opposite, meaning if any *mudallis* says "qala" (said) instead of "an" (from), as long as there is no difference according to al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his claim that it was not known among them before the use of the word "qala" by a *mudallis*—I see drowsiness teasing you—
The questioner : No, no.
The Shaykh : Early? Ah, he says it was not the custom of the *mudallis* to use "qala" (said), correct?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Yes, well... so if any *mudallis* says "so-and-so said," what do we do regarding al-Khatib al-Baghdadi's statement?
The questioner : If we take it in its generality, we would follow it.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The questioner : We would follow it.
The Shaykh : But it does not work.
The questioner : In reality, we suspend judgment on it.
The Shaykh : It does not work. I return to the point: since we have nothing preventing us from interpreting Ibn Jurayj's word, or Ibn Jurayj's phrase "an" (from), as his saying "qala" (said), since we have only this word you quoted from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, and its necessary consequence is that we reverse the issue completely: if any *mudallis* says "qala" (said), it was not their practice to practice tadlis with the word "qala" (said), because the meaning of "qala" (said) in al-Khatib's terminology, or in al-Khatib's phrase, is like if he said "I heard."
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Correct?
The questioner : Yes, it is not used for tadlis.
The Shaykh : This means canceling that distinction he mentioned entirely.
The questioner : Well, our Shaykh, if it were said that the *mudallis* plays with words and we fear from him, why didn't he say "if I say 'an' (from)" as well? So if someone says we suspend judgment on his "an'anah" out of fear of him, because he might practice tadlis with one form and not with another, then if he says "I said" or "he said," he removes this thing from himself, and the other one, which he explicitly stated, still carries fear.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt that this objection is valid, but what is the strength of its objection? Is it to the degree that it prevents us or obliges us to distinguish between his saying "an" (from) and his saying "qala" (said)? It would have been better, as you say, but not everything that is best comes to the mind of one who wants to speak. He said: "If I say 'Ata said,' I have heard from him." It was not actually "said," and this opens a door for us: if he said "Ata mentioned," for example, why didn't he say "he mentioned," and so on? No, the word "qala" (said) originally does not imply direct connection, so it is like the word "an" (from), which does not imply direct connection due to sharing the same cause. And "dhakara" (mentioned) might also be
The questioner : And "haddatha" (narrated).
The Shaykh : Ah, many expressions, and very many. The objection in that case would expand its circle such that it would cast doubt in the mind that this objection is not applicable.
The questioner : Well, does this also strengthen, our Shaykh? Adding to that another circumstance that strengthens this equating of "qala" (said) and "an" (from) regarding Ibn Jurayj from Ata, is that Ibn Jurayj narrated extensively from Ata and was constantly with him. The previous statement from al-Dhahabi that those who narrate extensively from *mudallis* are more knowledgeable about their hadith, and so on. Can this answer be strengthened by what al-Dhahabi said about al-A'mash and some of his shaykhs?
The Shaykh : It strengthens, yes.
The questioner : It strengthens.
The Shaykh : This is good of you.
And I came across a statement mentioned by al-Hafiz in *Hadi al-Sari* and in the book *Tughliq al-Ta'liq* from al-Khatib, who says: "The hadith scholars known for tadlis did not use the word 'qala' (said) in tadlis as they used 'an' (from)". So he said that among the *mudallis* (those who practice tadlis), it is not well-known for tadlis; he meant to mention this in defense of Imam al-Bukhari when Ibn Manda described him as a *mudallis* because he says "from some of his shaykhs, so-and-so said," and in some other narrations he says "I was told from so-and-so." He said he is a *mudallis*. He said no; the defense of al-Bukhari is that the word "qala" (said) was not known in the custom of the *mudallis* as a usage.
The Shaykh : From
The questioner : Like "an" (from), so the analogy of "an" (from) to "qala" (said) in this case
The Shaykh : Is not applicable
The questioner : Ah, it is not applicable, or with a difference? Yes.
The Shaykh : With a difference, but it is not applicable. Well, if we accept this initially, if a *mudallis* says "qala" (said), do we distinguish?
The questioner : No, for one known for tadlis, we do not distinguish. We do not distinguish.
The Shaykh : So why do we distinguish sometimes and not distinguish other times?
The questioner : Are you asking me now?
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : You are asking me now; I thought you would answer after him.
The Shaykh : No, no, I am asking based on what you quoted.
The questioner : Well, what became clear to me from al-Hafiz's words is that the ruling of tadlis is not established for a man merely because he used the word "qala" (said).
The Shaykh : I understood.
The questioner : Yes, yes. As for one known for tadlis, if he says "an" (from), "dhakara" (mentioned), or "haddatha" (narrated), and all the possible expressions that imply ambiguity, they are interpreted as
The Shaykh : Ibn Jurayj is known for tadlis.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : So if he says "an" (from), we should avoid his narration because he is a *mudallis*.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : But if he says "Ata said," we do not avoid him.
The questioner : We do not avoid him, yes.
The Shaykh : Well, this distinction requires us to do the exact opposite, meaning if any *mudallis* says "qala" (said) instead of "an" (from), as long as there is no difference according to al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his claim that it was not known among them before the use of the word "qala" by a *mudallis*—I see drowsiness teasing you—
The questioner : No, no.
The Shaykh : Early? Ah, he says it was not the custom of the *mudallis* to use "qala" (said), correct?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Yes, well... so if any *mudallis* says "so-and-so said," what do we do regarding al-Khatib al-Baghdadi's statement?
The questioner : If we take it in its generality, we would follow it.
The Shaykh : Ah?
The questioner : We would follow it.
The Shaykh : But it does not work.
The questioner : In reality, we suspend judgment on it.
The Shaykh : It does not work. I return to the point: since we have nothing preventing us from interpreting Ibn Jurayj's word, or Ibn Jurayj's phrase "an" (from), as his saying "qala" (said), since we have only this word you quoted from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, and its necessary consequence is that we reverse the issue completely: if any *mudallis* says "qala" (said), it was not their practice to practice tadlis with the word "qala" (said), because the meaning of "qala" (said) in al-Khatib's terminology, or in al-Khatib's phrase, is like if he said "I heard."
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Correct?
The questioner : Yes, it is not used for tadlis.
The Shaykh : This means canceling that distinction he mentioned entirely.
The questioner : Well, our Shaykh, if it were said that the *mudallis* plays with words and we fear from him, why didn't he say "if I say 'an' (from)" as well? So if someone says we suspend judgment on his "an'anah" out of fear of him, because he might practice tadlis with one form and not with another, then if he says "I said" or "he said," he removes this thing from himself, and the other one, which he explicitly stated, still carries fear.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt that this objection is valid, but what is the strength of its objection? Is it to the degree that it prevents us or obliges us to distinguish between his saying "an" (from) and his saying "qala" (said)? It would have been better, as you say, but not everything that is best comes to the mind of one who wants to speak. He said: "If I say 'Ata said,' I have heard from him." It was not actually "said," and this opens a door for us: if he said "Ata mentioned," for example, why didn't he say "he mentioned," and so on? No, the word "qala" (said) originally does not imply direct connection, so it is like the word "an" (from), which does not imply direct connection due to sharing the same cause. And "dhakara" (mentioned) might also be
The questioner : And "haddatha" (narrated).
The Shaykh : Ah, many expressions, and very many. The objection in that case would expand its circle such that it would cast doubt in the mind that this objection is not applicable.
The questioner : Well, does this also strengthen, our Shaykh? Adding to that another circumstance that strengthens this equating of "qala" (said) and "an" (from) regarding Ibn Jurayj from Ata, is that Ibn Jurayj narrated extensively from Ata and was constantly with him. The previous statement from al-Dhahabi that those who narrate extensively from *mudallis* are more knowledgeable about their hadith, and so on. Can this answer be strengthened by what al-Dhahabi said about al-A'mash and some of his shaykhs?
The Shaykh : It strengthens, yes.
The questioner : It strengthens.
The Shaykh : This is good of you.