In the case of *tadlis al-taswiyyah*, the weak *mudallis* is dropped between two trustworthy narrators; this is the principle. Does *tadlis al-taswiyyah* also include dropping a trustworthy narrator between two trustworthy narrators?

The student : All right, Shaykh, regarding *tadlis al-taswiyyah*!

The Shaykh : Regarding what?
The student : *Tadlis al-taswiyyah*.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student : It is sufficient for its definition to say: that the *muhaddith* or the narrator or the *mudallis* drops a weak narrator between two trustworthy narrators. Does that include a trustworthy narrator as well?

The Shaykh : But before we answer you, what is the benefit of this question?
The student : The benefit is: well, it came up in *al-Nukat* and we are studying it!

The Shaykh: Yes.
The student : That there are some examples, some narrators who dropped a trustworthy narrator and were not described as practicing *tadlis*.

The Shaykh: All right.
The student : *Tadlis al-taswiyyah*, I mean, even though what we know is that a man is dropped.

The Shaykh : That is not the benefit. You are talking about reality. I am asking about the benefit of this question? I mean, what follows from it? We...
The student : The benefit.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student : The benefit is why, I mean, the benefit is not clear to me, but I ask why the scholars did not describe him with *tadlis al-taswiyyah*?

The Shaykh : Because his *tadlis* does not harm. This is an easy matter, because his *tadlis* does not harm. It is most like the *mursal* reports of the Companions. For example, we are certain that Ibn Abbas narrates an incident related to the Battle of Badr al-Kubra, and he did not witness it. So this is like the action of the *mudallis* who drops an intermediary. He dropped the Companion from whom he heard the incident. So why do the scholars of hadith not hesitate to rely on the *mursal* reports of the Companions? For the reason I mentioned, in answer to your question. Is my answer clear?
The student : Is that clear?

The Shaykh: All right, go ahead.
The student : But here, the *mursal* is with us, and there is a very strong, dominant presumption that the dropped person is a trustworthy Companion or Successor, and he took it from another Companion.

The Shaykh : The same answer here!
The student : Here, in *tadlis al-taswiyyah*, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The same answer here. What do you have? What is the difference between this and that? Because your question is about a *mudallis* who drops a trustworthy narrator!
The student : A trustworthy narrator may be with him!

The Shaykh : May be?
The student : A trustworthy narrator is with him.

The Shaykh : They said so—yes—they said so when you cited them?
The student : No, they did not say that.

The Shaykh : So you say that. In that case, he has, like this professor said, another question.
The student : That is up to him, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes? Up to him.
The student : Or up to his own judgment!

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, in any case, the science of hadith.
The student : He, with your permission, O our Shaykh, the doubt is still present in my mind!

The Shaykh : How?
The student : He intended.

The Shaykh : Listen, O brother in Islam!
The student : I say that the doubt is still present in my mind.
Another student: Our Shaykh, truly.
The student : Yes, that is it.
Another student: I meant.
The student : You remained silent on.

The Shaykh : Reluctantly.
The student : Reluctantly, I mean.

The Shaykh : Hmm, what?
The student : O my Shaykh, the narrator dropped a trustworthy narrator. Do we describe him with *tadlis*?

The Shaykh : How did you know that he dropped a trustworthy narrator?
The student : It is this.
Another student: Try it on him.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student : Try it.

The Shaykh : I did not understand.
The student : Try that he dropped a trustworthy narrator.

The Shaykh : Yes, is this trustworthy narrator with him or with the critics?
The student : No, a trustworthy narrator is not only with him, but with others.

The Shaykh : How?
The student : Not only with him, but with others.

The Shaykh : You rest easy. Is it with him or with the critics? You say? With the critics, right?
The student : Yes, with the critics.

The Shaykh : Because we do not care about him, right or not?
The student : Yes.

The Shaykh : So the problem is gone, the problem is gone, because when you needed a defense you said "it may be with him," now you have returned to say: "it is with them"!
The student : And this is a third question, but I say, O our Shaykh: he intended to approximate or convey what the people of terminology established: that it is called, in terms of reality and in terms of general description, *tadlis*, is that not so?

The Shaykh : It does not matter.
The student : They do not call it *tadlis*!

The Shaykh : It does not matter.
The student : They do not call it *tadlis*!
Another student: And what do they call it?

The Shaykh : It does not matter to them. If we assume they called it *tadlis*, it does not matter to them. It is a verbal discussion.
The student : It is called *tadlis*.
Another student: There is no benefit.
The student : There is no benefit.

The Shaykh : Yes, come on, everyone, it is time to leave.