How do they cite Arabic evidence when the speaker is unknown, and why do they not cite hadith in the study of Arabic language?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : One of the strange things is that they answer that authentic evidence may be cited even if the speaker is not known, and then some of them say that hadith is not cited to establish Arabic language. It is one of the strange things.
The questioner : But Shaykh, Muslim always narrates hadiths, saying for example: "Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna and Ibn Ja'far narrated to us, and the wording is that of Ibn Ja'far." So the difference in wording comes from Muslim's shaykhs, and it becomes a disagreement.
The Shaykh : But if he narrates it in the nominative case, he narrates it in the nominative case, because he narrated it from the shaykh in the nominative case, and from the second shaykh in the nominative case. And this is a difference in wording, which may mean advancing or delaying, or advancing and delaying, or adding and subtracting, as for the issue.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, because he narrated it from the shaykh who narrated to him in his own wording.
The questioner : But sometimes, O Shaykh, they say there is no answer. Sometimes a linguistic issue appears in the authentic collections that has no answer for them, and they say: "It cannot be anything but a mistake by the narrator."
The Shaykh : No, no, there is nothing that has no answer ever. Issues of grammar cannot ever have no answer. For this reason, they always say: "The argument of the grammarian is like the burrow of the jerboa; it is blocked by the door, yet it comes out with the belt."
The questioner : But the evidence.
The Shaykh : Yes. But distribute it on ... Did you not take it ever? Take, take.
The questioner : Am I taking it for a woman?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : For a woman, for a woman.
The Shaykh : For a woman, yes, she can benefit from the man in this.
The questioner : But Shaykh, Muslim always narrates hadiths, saying for example: "Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna and Ibn Ja'far narrated to us, and the wording is that of Ibn Ja'far." So the difference in wording comes from Muslim's shaykhs, and it becomes a disagreement.
The Shaykh : But if he narrates it in the nominative case, he narrates it in the nominative case, because he narrated it from the shaykh in the nominative case, and from the second shaykh in the nominative case. And this is a difference in wording, which may mean advancing or delaying, or advancing and delaying, or adding and subtracting, as for the issue.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, because he narrated it from the shaykh who narrated to him in his own wording.
The questioner : But sometimes, O Shaykh, they say there is no answer. Sometimes a linguistic issue appears in the authentic collections that has no answer for them, and they say: "It cannot be anything but a mistake by the narrator."
The Shaykh : No, no, there is nothing that has no answer ever. Issues of grammar cannot ever have no answer. For this reason, they always say: "The argument of the grammarian is like the burrow of the jerboa; it is blocked by the door, yet it comes out with the belt."
The questioner : But the evidence.
The Shaykh : Yes. But distribute it on ... Did you not take it ever? Take, take.
The questioner : Am I taking it for a woman?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : For a woman, for a woman.
The Shaykh : For a woman, yes, she can benefit from the man in this.