The Shaykh’s discussion with the student regarding a study of a hadith’s chain of narration, and whether the text is strengthened without the chain or not, and similar matters.

The Shaykh : It is said: The hadith is hasan (good).
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Or it is said: Its chain of narration is hasan (good) due to other evidence.
The student : Yes, that is fine.

The Shaykh : Because he is explaining that Abu Amr, Yusuf ibn Ya’qub, is weak, meaning in what was transmitted from al-Lisan, is that correct?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, then he says: Al-Bazzar narrated it from Muhammad, and so on, Uthman ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Thabit, from Humayd, from Anas. This is another route from Humayd, different from the one found here.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, within the previous hadith, did you go back? Where is it within the previous hadith, here?
The student : No, excuse me, Shaykh, his phrase attributes it to al-Bazzar. Al-Bazzar brought a hadith, and in it there is a reference, meaning a hadith with two chains of narration.

The Shaykh : Within the previous hadith, who says: within the previous hadith?
The student : This one who traced the hadith to its sources.

The Shaykh : Okay, when this one who traced the hadith to its sources says: within the previous hadith, it means it is mentioned here or here.
The student : Excuse me, may Allah preserve you, Shaykh, in the context of this speech, if it is appropriate in my view, he narrated it from al-Bazzar, and so on, he was told from Anas with it, within the previous hadith. This phrase seems to have a problem!

The Shaykh : It must be, my brother, within the previous hadith, meaning this one!
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : This is Anas’s hadith, the one that contains: “He gave a feast for Umm Salama.”
The student : Look, Shaykh, here, may Allah preserve you.

The Shaykh : It has no relation, my brother, to this. It has no relation. This is the commentator’s word.
The student : The commentator, yes.

The Shaykh : It is not al-Bazzar’s word.
The student : No, it is the commentator’s word, Shaykh. Meaning, here, may Allah preserve you, when he transmits this speech: Al-Bazzar narrated it from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Mufaddal, here: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Mufaddal al-Harrami was told, and so on of the hadith. So, in this hadith, there is a reference, which is the hadith of Ahmad ibn Bakkār. So, here he says: Or he narrated this chain of narration—which is the chain of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman—within the hadith that he cited as proof for the authenticity of this hadith, or the goodness of this hadith.

The Shaykh : What is this talk?! He narrated the chain of narration?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Did he narrate the chain of narration or the hadith?
The student : He narrated the hadith.

The Shaykh : You are saying: the chain of narration. How can he narrate the chain of narration?!
The student : No, he narrated the hadith, Shaykh, meaning with two chains of narration. So he says: This one, this chain of narration, is within the first chain of narration!

The Shaykh : He is telling you: within the hadith, my brother, not within the chain of narration. Once you say: he narrated the chain of narration, and once you say: within the chain of narration. He says: within the previous hadith, within the previous hadith. Where is the previous hadith here?
The student : No, he is talking about chains of narration. So, the phrase, may Allah know best, Shaykh, has, meaning, a deficiency in expression.

The Shaykh : No, I want to understand. How did you understand it?!
The student : I understood, Shaykh, may Allah preserve you.

The Shaykh : Leave this to me. Where did you understand “within the previous hadith” from? How did you understand “within the previous hadith”?!
The student : That it is within the chain of narration.

The Shaykh : Not in this book, meaning here?!
The student : Yes, in my view, in the two chains of narration he mentioned from al-Bazzar, I found them within this hadith.

The Shaykh : What did you find from the hadith?
The student : The two chains of narration he refers to.

The Shaykh : You go back and say: within what? The two chains of narration!!
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : My brother, “he narrated it”: to whom does the pronoun refer? To the hadith.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, from Muhammad, this is the chain of narration.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : To Anas.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : With it, within the previous hadith. Al-Bazzar narrated it within the previous hadith.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Leave all of this, these two lines, and “al-Bazzar narrated it within the previous hadith.” What previous hadith?!
The student : Which is this one, Shaykh. This is the one from the route of Ahmad ibn Bakkār!!

The Shaykh : This is not called “previous,” my brother. This would be called “previous” if there were a hadith before it.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : As for this hadith above, the previous one is this, or this, or the one before it.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : The important thing, what is the original problem?!
The student : The original problem is: that this hadith is weak, and it seems there is an indication of severe weakness.

The Shaykh: Yes.
The student : So now, al-Bazzar’s narration from Ahmad ibn Bakkār, which is a supporting chain for this hadith, we do not say, meaning the problem for me, we do not say: that it authenticates this chain of narration, because this chain of narration does not rise to the level of authenticity due to the witnesses, because of this one who.

The Shaykh : Is authenticating the hadith?
The student : It is authentic, meaning al-Bazzar’s chain of narration is authentic in itself.

The Shaykh : You lied!
The student: Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Does al-Bazzar’s chain of narration authenticate the hadith or not?
The student : It authenticates it.

The Shaykh: All right.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And if this chain of narration is weak?
The student : Fine, that means it is good.

The Shaykh: All right.
The student : Now there is a hypothesis. If al-Bazzar’s chain of narration, Shaykh, contains a weak narrator.

The Shaykh: All right.
The student : So, is this chain of narration of al-Bazzar, which contains a weak narrator, a supporting chain for this hadith which contains a narrator about whom one of the preservers mentioned that he, meaning, lies?

The Shaykh : No, it does not strengthen it.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, you are now researching a hypothesis, saying: if it were weak.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, and this answer is: that it does not strengthen it.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : But since it is strong, we say: the hadith is strong with this chain of narration, and weak with this chain of narration, so it is not accepted?
The student : Yes, it is accepted, of course.

The Shaykh : Okay, so what is the benefit of the question if the chain of narration were weak?
The student : The problem, Shaykh, is only around his mention of the chain of narration.

The Shaykh : The important thing, my brother, his saying: “Its chain of narration is hasan (good),” is an error.

The questioner : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : His strengthening of the hadith with Anas’s hadith that is with al-Bazzar. If the text is the same, then the text is authentic or hasan (good) due to other evidence. As for the chain of narration, it is not hasan (good); it is weak.
The student : Yes, yes, we say, Shaykh: hasan (good) due to other evidence, because of the presence of this weak narrator in it.

The Shaykh : Very much.
The student : Yes, we seek help from Allah.
The student: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, yes.
The student : Please, is there anyone who has something?

The Shaykh : Is there no one? Let’s go.
The student : No, Shaykh, there is.