Jamal Zarabozo – Introduction To The Science Of Hadeeth Part 10

Jamal Zarabozo
Share Page

AI: Summary ©

The importance of identifying narratives in a narrative is highlighted, with scores and names being unknown. The segment discusses various narratives and their relationship with other people, as well as the use of negative language and comments on social media. The speakers suggest categorizing narratives by three categories and discuss the use of words and phrases in narratives and negative statements.

AI: Summary ©

00:00:15 --> 00:00:16
			This is the 10th
		
00:00:20 --> 00:00:23
			because that's just in the end, I finish all this stuff in a lecture.
		
00:00:25 --> 00:00:27
			course we skipped for Jeff.
		
00:00:30 --> 00:00:31
			Where did we leave off?
		
00:00:54 --> 00:00:55
			To finish
		
00:01:00 --> 00:01:03
			now we'll talk about the unknown
		
00:01:10 --> 00:01:11
			unknown narrator
		
00:01:24 --> 00:01:30
			definition of logical or unknown narrator according to the scores of headings does anyone
		
00:01:32 --> 00:01:35
			of the above anything, anyone who
		
00:01:36 --> 00:01:39
			is not known to study headed to have been a student dependent
		
00:01:44 --> 00:01:46
			anyone whom the scores are not aware of
		
00:01:51 --> 00:01:54
			anyone who had only one person nary Teddy for
		
00:01:59 --> 00:02:03
			anyone who had only one person married Peggy.
		
00:02:09 --> 00:02:13
			And the fourth one is anyone who is not known for carrying knowledge.
		
00:02:14 --> 00:02:17
			Although he may be known for other things, for example, medic,
		
00:02:19 --> 00:02:22
			was one known preserved but you will not know
		
00:02:32 --> 00:02:35
			anyone who has only one person Narrator
		
00:02:37 --> 00:02:40
			In other words, to remove the condition of data or
		
00:02:43 --> 00:02:44
			being a node
		
00:02:45 --> 00:02:45
			needs to be
		
00:02:55 --> 00:03:06
			amongst the people who are considered unknown members as a condition and in the basic and always
keep these things in mind. Or to accept the narrator.
		
00:03:09 --> 00:03:14
			The two most important things that we're looking for always keep these in mind.
		
00:03:31 --> 00:03:33
			We have three sets,
		
00:03:39 --> 00:03:40
			unknown narrative.
		
00:03:45 --> 00:03:46
			I,
		
00:03:49 --> 00:03:50
			personally,
		
00:03:54 --> 00:03:55
			am someone who
		
00:03:57 --> 00:03:58
			scores.
		
00:04:04 --> 00:04:05
			The scores are not able to
		
00:04:07 --> 00:04:10
			describe or identify exactly who this person is.
		
00:04:12 --> 00:04:15
			In other words, his name might be found in some chain, some
		
00:04:16 --> 00:04:17
			stores do not know who
		
00:04:22 --> 00:04:25
			his name might be, they might be in the chain.
		
00:04:27 --> 00:04:28
			But they have no idea who
		
00:04:30 --> 00:04:31
			they might just know the name of the
		
00:04:36 --> 00:04:39
			request. And of course, if they don't even know a name, or they want to talk about
		
00:04:41 --> 00:04:42
			someone,
		
00:04:43 --> 00:04:43
			even though
		
00:04:48 --> 00:04:54
			they're unable to identify who he is, who is this person, when did he then for his show, who studied
with him
		
00:04:56 --> 00:04:58
			he was above this category.
		
00:05:00 --> 00:05:02
			gonna set the narrative
		
00:05:05 --> 00:05:05
			because
		
00:05:12 --> 00:05:16
			it is the two conditions. We have no idea who these people are.
		
00:05:20 --> 00:05:22
			Okay, as long as you know.
		
00:05:27 --> 00:05:28
			Yeah, of course we're talking.
		
00:05:31 --> 00:05:34
			I mean, they're not, they're not meant to do for someone they don't know.
		
00:05:38 --> 00:05:41
			Okay? This is a problem here
		
00:05:50 --> 00:05:51
			for this person
		
00:05:53 --> 00:05:59
			from the chain or from the people who are married to this person that's from the first three
generations and
		
00:06:06 --> 00:06:08
			obviously these from the first three generations.
		
00:06:10 --> 00:06:10
			Does that make any
		
00:06:13 --> 00:06:15
			sense? Does it make a difference?
		
00:06:49 --> 00:06:51
			lose that you do not know what
		
00:06:53 --> 00:06:55
			if you know for sure he's the homies even if you don't know
		
00:07:00 --> 00:07:09
			if he's one of the Sahaba close as soon as you cannot be not necessarily always assume but what we
know from them, what we described earlier, always very careful.
		
00:07:11 --> 00:07:16
			And he would accept that person happy. But at the same time, we would compare it to other people
		
00:07:25 --> 00:07:28
			talking about the case where you know the person that's
		
00:07:30 --> 00:07:32
			the problem with this is some of the people especially the Hennepin
		
00:07:34 --> 00:07:36
			they say that it's from the first three generations
		
00:07:38 --> 00:07:39
			to have a tendency to accept
		
00:07:42 --> 00:07:42
			this
		
00:07:48 --> 00:07:49
			in general the
		
00:07:52 --> 00:07:57
			most the scholars of hate except for those who are happy, they reject this
		
00:08:00 --> 00:08:03
			is a very weak opinion, because we know from this domain there are some there is
		
00:08:11 --> 00:08:16
			accepted. If if they if there is no proof that
		
00:08:27 --> 00:08:30
			have you been writing today, or any?
		
00:08:32 --> 00:08:33
			All right.
		
00:08:34 --> 00:08:39
			Melinda is one of looked as written articles trying to prove that this
		
00:08:40 --> 00:08:41
			isn't a feud in many tests.
		
00:08:44 --> 00:08:45
			But there's also another
		
00:08:48 --> 00:08:48
			the second one
		
00:09:00 --> 00:09:01
			had
		
00:09:03 --> 00:09:05
			this is someone who we know who he is.
		
00:09:09 --> 00:09:11
			We know exactly who this person is.
		
00:09:14 --> 00:09:16
			But we have no idea whether he was
		
00:09:20 --> 00:09:23
			and we know who he is. We know where he lives. We have an idea of who was
		
00:09:25 --> 00:09:30
			pure but we do not have any idea whether he
		
00:09:43 --> 00:09:43
			because I will
		
00:09:45 --> 00:09:46
			require some investigation.
		
00:09:49 --> 00:09:52
			We don't just say someone's Island just because we saw Greg in the mosque.
		
00:10:03 --> 00:10:05
			Organic is from these people who don't really know
		
00:10:10 --> 00:10:11
			where she got it from those people who are willing
		
00:10:16 --> 00:10:18
			to not accept these.
		
00:10:28 --> 00:10:30
			Except for again, the first generation
		
00:10:34 --> 00:10:36
			the one which is most different opinions.
		
00:11:06 --> 00:11:08
			What do we mean by this? The more
		
00:11:13 --> 00:11:14
			you know, ladies and
		
00:11:19 --> 00:11:20
			gentlemen say,
		
00:11:27 --> 00:11:27
			welcome.
		
00:11:31 --> 00:11:33
			Young, he has private lessons, but no,
		
00:11:37 --> 00:11:39
			we don't we only we see him, he goes to the mosque and we see him.
		
00:11:42 --> 00:11:44
			But we really don't know any private
		
00:11:48 --> 00:11:49
			people.
		
00:11:55 --> 00:11:59
			In other words, for narratives to be just in general, we really have to know them.
		
00:12:18 --> 00:12:19
			Oh, yeah, that's my question.
		
00:12:26 --> 00:12:33
			Let me ask you, is there any reason to assume that someone is either going to proven guilty?
		
00:12:34 --> 00:12:37
			We assume someone do we have an advantage?
		
00:12:39 --> 00:12:41
			Especially in the third case, got it.
		
00:12:55 --> 00:12:56
			Oh, in other words, any
		
00:12:58 --> 00:13:00
			question at the theoretical question.
		
00:13:02 --> 00:13:12
			Should we assume? Should we assume that someone is born other life should we have done for him and
therefore assume that
		
00:13:17 --> 00:13:18
			he needs to be
		
00:13:23 --> 00:13:24
			okay.
		
00:13:25 --> 00:13:27
			Good. Yeah. It doesn't have to be
		
00:13:28 --> 00:13:28
			black and white.
		
00:13:30 --> 00:13:30
			That's why the cones
		
00:13:33 --> 00:13:34
			work. We don't know.
		
00:13:35 --> 00:13:40
			Exactly. But if they're supported by other people, we may we may.
		
00:13:44 --> 00:13:45
			We know that.
		
00:13:48 --> 00:13:50
			They're supported by other people.
		
00:13:56 --> 00:13:57
			headings are not supported.
		
00:14:00 --> 00:14:14
			Question, what have you been had to answer was the someone become an acceptable narrator? due to
some information that he has either or any become an acceptable narrator because there's no
information?
		
00:14:17 --> 00:14:19
			That's what this question was, does.
		
00:14:20 --> 00:14:26
			He does he have to be proven to be either or just the fact that we have no information that is
sufficient
		
00:14:29 --> 00:14:30
			to discover this master?
		
00:14:36 --> 00:14:37
			What did I say?
		
00:14:42 --> 00:14:43
			No explanation.
		
00:15:00 --> 00:15:00
			Have
		
00:15:03 --> 00:15:04
			we asked that question?
		
00:15:09 --> 00:15:11
			As long as there's no proof that
		
00:15:13 --> 00:15:14
			he doesn't have to be proven,
		
00:15:16 --> 00:15:17
			because we know
		
00:15:20 --> 00:15:21
			in general
		
00:15:29 --> 00:15:32
			tendency to accept to accept this route.
		
00:15:37 --> 00:15:39
			Except that group if there's no
		
00:15:41 --> 00:15:43
			really no strange,
		
00:15:45 --> 00:15:49
			no reject, there's no rejected, at least not to be married by these people.
		
00:15:51 --> 00:15:52
			And he puts these people
		
00:15:55 --> 00:15:55
			in his book.
		
00:16:03 --> 00:16:05
			He has a collection of narratives that he calls
		
00:16:07 --> 00:16:09
			and he includes these people.
		
00:16:10 --> 00:16:13
			In other words he has, so if there's no proof against them that
		
00:16:17 --> 00:16:18
			this is normal.
		
00:16:24 --> 00:16:26
			So that's why it is
		
00:16:27 --> 00:16:30
			that many narratives that other scholars do not consider.
		
00:16:32 --> 00:16:33
			Because people
		
00:16:35 --> 00:16:37
			will not be stuck with people
		
00:16:38 --> 00:16:39
			until they're proven to be
		
00:16:40 --> 00:16:41
			volatile.
		
00:16:48 --> 00:16:52
			So it would have been a little bit of what I said at this point is lack
		
00:16:53 --> 00:16:54
			of those who are
		
00:16:56 --> 00:16:57
			was the before and
		
00:16:58 --> 00:16:59
			after.
		
00:17:07 --> 00:17:08
			And generally it does dealer from
		
00:17:11 --> 00:17:12
			remember, we had rankings
		
00:17:22 --> 00:17:30
			with someone else in focus. So these people must have had will be done here. And the second time
		
00:17:38 --> 00:17:39
			this is our time.
		
00:17:46 --> 00:17:47
			Any questions about
		
00:17:48 --> 00:17:51
			how can someone be removed from being concerned with
		
00:17:57 --> 00:18:01
			that question? And the answer is, is as unless proven.
		
00:18:05 --> 00:18:07
			To everyone else, is it to not consider
		
00:18:15 --> 00:18:19
			how there's no one held as someone removed from being considered.
		
00:18:27 --> 00:18:29
			A study these guys get married.
		
00:18:32 --> 00:18:38
			There are two sets of narrators narrated from him is no longer considered,
		
00:18:42 --> 00:18:43
			considered mature.
		
00:18:45 --> 00:18:47
			But this does not mean automatically that attendees are
		
00:18:48 --> 00:18:51
			just not no longer considered unknown.
		
00:19:01 --> 00:19:02
			To
		
00:19:04 --> 00:19:06
			marry from someone, in
		
00:19:08 --> 00:19:10
			other words, we don't put him in the category of unknown people.
		
00:19:11 --> 00:19:12
			To
		
00:19:13 --> 00:19:18
			him, is considered known, but that doesn't mean that he would consider himself
		
00:19:19 --> 00:19:20
			further proof to show that he
		
00:19:22 --> 00:19:24
			is no longer considered unknown.
		
00:19:29 --> 00:19:31
			And as I pointed out to
		
00:19:32 --> 00:19:34
			as I pointed out, earlier,
		
00:19:38 --> 00:19:42
			sometimes you have to be careful when you call someone unknown.
		
00:19:43 --> 00:19:45
			You should do some research into it.
		
00:19:50 --> 00:19:57
			Find that someone is unknown and they could not determine or do enough research they might say that
I do not know this narrative
		
00:19:58 --> 00:19:59
			that's different from calling you
		
00:20:00 --> 00:20:00
			Input
		
00:20:07 --> 00:20:17
			measurement would mean that research has been done and you could not find this guy in discord during
his time said that he has multiple lowers his number of students attending
		
00:20:20 --> 00:20:23
			difference between someone saying I know this person and calling him
		
00:20:28 --> 00:20:30
			out when he writes me this many
		
00:20:33 --> 00:20:34
			books
		
00:20:36 --> 00:20:40
			you cannot come across in most of the books of biography
		
00:20:42 --> 00:20:45
			I'm sure they're in some books of biography but many most of the popular books
		
00:20:48 --> 00:20:49
			economics you cannot find.
		
00:20:52 --> 00:21:02
			So sometimes he works quickly. So many times you'll say that until now, I haven't found this
Narrator In any book, or I'm reading my books
		
00:21:12 --> 00:21:15
			is not the one originally narrating it taking it from?
		
00:21:20 --> 00:21:21
			I don't know I don't know.
		
00:21:22 --> 00:21:24
			Which is different from him saying the visionary as much
		
00:21:26 --> 00:21:27
			as I mentioned, for example, if it hasn't
		
00:21:29 --> 00:21:30
			been merging with who
		
00:21:33 --> 00:21:35
			someone might be much too one score, but
		
00:21:37 --> 00:21:41
			obviously if you find one score saying that the person's misquoted the other ones things that
		
00:21:44 --> 00:21:44
			take precedence
		
00:21:51 --> 00:21:51
			No.
		
00:21:54 --> 00:21:59
			And he was the one who says that this means he has information that the other person doesn't have
		
00:22:02 --> 00:22:04
			any luck someone says
		
00:22:05 --> 00:22:07
			someone else's company just ignore
		
00:22:12 --> 00:22:13
			Can you call the
		
00:22:20 --> 00:22:20
			mistake
		
00:22:24 --> 00:22:24
			was
		
00:22:30 --> 00:22:37
			just written a letter to anyone in the family but hasn't was he did not travel to Spain.
		
00:22:40 --> 00:22:42
			He did not travel to Spain to Spain
		
00:22:43 --> 00:22:46
			had a letter to anyone in the
		
00:22:48 --> 00:22:52
			Middle East. They wouldn't even been able to send them copies.
		
00:22:56 --> 00:22:57
			So he was making judgment.
		
00:23:01 --> 00:23:02
			Many questions about
		
00:23:24 --> 00:23:30
			always want to talk about we talk in those terms. We're always talking about someone who's qualified
to make mistakes.
		
00:23:32 --> 00:23:33
			And we get qualifications for credit.
		
00:23:35 --> 00:23:39
			Always anyone we talked about talking about among those people who are qualified.
		
00:23:49 --> 00:23:51
			The next category are liars.
		
00:23:55 --> 00:23:55
			Life
		
00:24:00 --> 00:24:01
			fabricated
		
00:24:27 --> 00:24:27
			alive.
		
00:24:41 --> 00:24:55
			If someone is an expert in memory and recording it doesn't matter. It knows to be a liar. All of his
headaches were are to be rejected and is known even just applied once.
		
00:24:56 --> 00:24:58
			That all gets rejected.
		
00:25:02 --> 00:25:02
			Just
		
00:25:05 --> 00:25:06
			like in general
		
00:25:08 --> 00:25:10
			with respect to fabricating heavy
		
00:25:13 --> 00:25:17
			fabricating heavy investment, according to your textbook,
		
00:25:23 --> 00:25:24
			remember the textbook?
		
00:25:32 --> 00:25:39
			Yeah, actually assume he says that the punishments for any fabricating hobbyist has to be put to
death.
		
00:25:44 --> 00:25:45
			There have been some people
		
00:25:51 --> 00:25:51
			have
		
00:25:53 --> 00:25:56
			some failures and the punishment, they don't discuss whether it's
		
00:25:57 --> 00:25:58
			good.
		
00:26:05 --> 00:26:12
			And if someone narrates it, which is obviously mistaken.
		
00:26:13 --> 00:26:17
			Point out to him his mistake. There's no excuse me.
		
00:26:19 --> 00:26:28
			And the person refuses to admit the mistake or two sub narrating that he that he is one that he is
considered one of the liars.
		
00:26:32 --> 00:26:42
			Also, the problem we find nowadays and someone knows the disparities and it continues to narrower
than any other heading that is one of the largest
		
00:26:50 --> 00:26:56
			and because you're you're saying and in the process of consensus, when you have been told the scars
say for sure the
		
00:26:57 --> 00:26:58
			scars
		
00:26:59 --> 00:26:59
			say that
		
00:27:01 --> 00:27:02
			for sure this
		
00:27:03 --> 00:27:04
			has nothing to do with
		
00:27:21 --> 00:27:25
			if you trust Him, and you think he has some policy
		
00:27:26 --> 00:27:28
			then yeah, you should start learning how to you
		
00:27:32 --> 00:27:33
			know support someone
		
00:27:45 --> 00:27:46
			I
		
00:27:55 --> 00:27:57
			suppose someone someone does
		
00:27:58 --> 00:28:00
			not need any luck
		
00:28:03 --> 00:28:03
			and later we make
		
00:28:05 --> 00:28:06
			can we now have simplicity
		
00:28:16 --> 00:28:20
			and improve the life you get something illegally returned to the person who
		
00:28:24 --> 00:28:25
			used to drink alcohol
		
00:28:27 --> 00:28:28
			illegal
		
00:28:32 --> 00:28:33
			before
		
00:28:37 --> 00:28:38
			heavy heavy
		
00:28:43 --> 00:28:46
			in case you say what about the case of like
		
00:28:54 --> 00:28:57
			in the case of like some sort of say an endeavor except
		
00:29:05 --> 00:29:09
			now we we may accept this toolbar, but we'll consider him a week.
		
00:29:29 --> 00:29:32
			Consider Wi Fi supported by others.
		
00:29:33 --> 00:29:35
			Now there used to be a group of people
		
00:29:36 --> 00:29:37
			don't remember the name
		
00:29:39 --> 00:29:42
			but they used to consider it hello to fabricate
		
00:29:47 --> 00:29:47
			their
		
00:29:49 --> 00:29:52
			report exhorting people to do things and intimidating
		
00:29:54 --> 00:29:56
			and they get the heaviest monkey in the body here.
		
00:29:57 --> 00:29:57
			We are not
		
00:29:59 --> 00:29:59
			into that
		
00:30:07 --> 00:30:09
			So if someone is like that guy he believes
		
00:30:11 --> 00:30:14
			and then he's showing anything wrong and then he makes to work
		
00:30:15 --> 00:30:17
			then as long as there's someone like that you could accept
		
00:30:19 --> 00:30:26
			that what was with that is it's a very dangerous decision because the you might say okay, we've
slipped into
		
00:30:27 --> 00:30:37
			someone like yours I need this use of gravity and not be able to distinguish between so you have to
be careful in that situation but there were any
		
00:30:39 --> 00:30:42
			about 200 years old there were some people who believe
		
00:30:49 --> 00:30:52
			daddy wasn't very careful
		
00:30:53 --> 00:30:55
			and you don't look on the liar anymore.
		
00:30:58 --> 00:30:58
			Except this
		
00:31:04 --> 00:31:05
			is best avoided.
		
00:31:22 --> 00:31:24
			Me they believe the
		
00:31:26 --> 00:31:27
			advocate for of the gene and
		
00:31:31 --> 00:31:32
			make up something
		
00:31:33 --> 00:31:34
			you make something
		
00:31:37 --> 00:31:37
			for them.
		
00:31:40 --> 00:31:44
			But you take something which is known as the religion and you just take it if you do this, do you
get to
		
00:31:46 --> 00:31:47
			do this?
		
00:32:03 --> 00:32:08
			Yeah, there's a certain amount of buzz unfortunately, I think I recorded in the chapter.
		
00:32:18 --> 00:32:19
			Question about Mars
		
00:32:26 --> 00:32:27
			in my opinion,
		
00:32:31 --> 00:32:31
			even up
		
00:32:34 --> 00:32:34
			to
		
00:32:37 --> 00:32:39
			Yeah, I mean, even as he changes,
		
00:32:44 --> 00:32:44
			change
		
00:32:54 --> 00:32:54
			was made clear
		
00:32:58 --> 00:33:00
			by those who commit the disease,
		
00:33:04 --> 00:33:05
			the storytellers and
		
00:33:07 --> 00:33:09
			worshipers who are not people who
		
00:33:10 --> 00:33:11
			will discuss them.
		
00:33:16 --> 00:33:21
			Now we've come to careless or mistake prone or lenient scenarios.
		
00:33:25 --> 00:33:27
			And even though someone may be odd
		
00:33:37 --> 00:33:38
			to say,
		
00:33:57 --> 00:33:58
			when they're very
		
00:34:02 --> 00:34:08
			many people might be either they might be very good Muslims, but anyone that comes to passing on
information.
		
00:34:16 --> 00:34:28
			As I said, earlier, I mentioned earlier, if someone does not mind for example, to sleep or glasses
while listening to lecture or this kind of thing.
		
00:34:34 --> 00:34:38
			For those young people who do not compare the copies with the original text will be sort of
		
00:34:48 --> 00:34:51
			divided all narrators into four categories.
		
00:35:06 --> 00:35:16
			The four categories that you mentioned are the most, this is all very divided all marriage and
divorce are those that have been accused of lying
		
00:35:19 --> 00:35:22
			accused of lying, but their durations
		
00:35:26 --> 00:35:29
			and durations are full of errors and mistakes
		
00:35:44 --> 00:35:46
			in the logic divided all narratives into four categories
		
00:35:49 --> 00:35:49
			all
		
00:35:51 --> 00:35:53
			those who have been accused of lying,
		
00:35:58 --> 00:36:02
			those that have not been accused of lying, but their narrations are poor mistakes.
		
00:36:08 --> 00:36:14
			Those are honest, but they admit mistakes although their mistake they are not mistaken Muslims
		
00:36:18 --> 00:36:20
			have not been accused of lying know what they are.
		
00:36:21 --> 00:36:23
			But there is a
		
00:36:29 --> 00:36:32
			third they are honest and they can make some mistakes, but not
		
00:36:35 --> 00:36:36
			for
		
00:36:38 --> 00:36:40
			the people who are
		
00:36:42 --> 00:36:43
			experts rarely ever,
		
00:36:47 --> 00:36:48
			rarely ever,
		
00:36:50 --> 00:36:51
			never committed
		
00:36:54 --> 00:36:57
			8000
		
00:37:03 --> 00:37:05
			details and I thought only four mistakes.
		
00:37:10 --> 00:37:11
			So, these four
		
00:37:13 --> 00:37:15
			obviously the third and fourth category.
		
00:37:25 --> 00:37:27
			Obviously, the first category
		
00:37:31 --> 00:37:32
			is with a second category
		
00:37:35 --> 00:37:36
			compared
		
00:37:38 --> 00:37:42
			to how to deal with that second category which are us people but they make lots of mistakes.
		
00:37:43 --> 00:37:45
			Do we reject all the
		
00:37:51 --> 00:37:53
			other words down here they are supported by others?
		
00:38:00 --> 00:38:01
			You have to realize of course that
		
00:38:03 --> 00:38:06
			the guy who falls into that second category has to question that he had
		
00:38:07 --> 00:38:11
			because as I said what is a lot of mistakes to one person may not be lost
		
00:38:14 --> 00:38:14
			in
		
00:38:18 --> 00:38:19
			just a few mistakes and that was
		
00:38:23 --> 00:38:26
			one of the clothes and refuse to
		
00:38:30 --> 00:38:38
			answer the question that he had was there's a lot of mistakes and that's one reason why you might
find different statements from different schools and soon seen
		
00:38:52 --> 00:38:53
			people make lots of mistakes.
		
00:38:55 --> 00:38:58
			there any way we will
		
00:38:59 --> 00:39:02
			respect them for their honesty and if they are supported by
		
00:39:13 --> 00:39:15
			the expert certification.
		
00:39:34 --> 00:39:36
			Next category are those people who make
		
00:39:46 --> 00:39:46
			conditioning.
		
00:39:55 --> 00:39:55
			So
		
00:39:57 --> 00:40:00
			you have two people force of similar quality
		
00:40:00 --> 00:40:01
			They're both.
		
00:40:02 --> 00:40:03
			They both make mistakes.
		
00:40:08 --> 00:40:19
			They both support each other as they get closer. If you find two other people who are similar to
them, and all for that there isn't the same way, then the possibility of them having made an error,
and then there is
		
00:40:22 --> 00:40:27
			so so yeah, the way you were thinking about it is, you mean, you think someone better than them and
support
		
00:40:28 --> 00:40:29
			people of equipment?
		
00:40:43 --> 00:40:43
			earlier, this was
		
00:40:46 --> 00:40:50
			those people who missed Harry's in their, in their old age, for example.
		
00:40:53 --> 00:40:57
			And someone used to be that he started losing his mental capabilities.
		
00:41:16 --> 00:41:18
			Because I put three into one, just put them on Yeah.
		
00:41:22 --> 00:41:24
			Now what do we do about these
		
00:41:30 --> 00:41:30
			things
		
00:41:39 --> 00:41:45
			that if you are certain that someone heard it from him before, he says losing is meant to give.
		
00:41:51 --> 00:42:03
			By the way, as I mentioned earlier, that usually was the family of the person, when they start
seeing the person started going a little bit. And they kind of closed the doors and don't allow
people to come in.
		
00:42:06 --> 00:42:09
			But there are some people who still continue their narrative even though
		
00:42:10 --> 00:42:16
			By the way, not just because of all these, but something may have happened in his life that made him
lose his most
		
00:42:18 --> 00:42:20
			famous narrator
		
00:42:27 --> 00:42:28
			looking at my notes again,
		
00:42:50 --> 00:42:54
			books after that, and before that, he was a little bit weak.
		
00:42:56 --> 00:43:03
			But if he never bought any books or whatever, then he lost all of his books, and he can't even go
and like overdose or anything.
		
00:43:21 --> 00:43:22
			Because
		
00:43:23 --> 00:43:27
			after the after the burning of his house, he was still very heavy, but she could not get anything.
		
00:43:29 --> 00:43:30
			So it doesn't mean just
		
00:43:32 --> 00:43:33
			as it was
		
00:43:36 --> 00:43:37
			before he was weak, but
		
00:43:39 --> 00:43:42
			that means there's some cause they use it Yeah, in the case of some
		
00:43:43 --> 00:43:48
			like the burning down of his house and all those books may have also had some psychological effect.
		
00:43:50 --> 00:43:50
			Yeah.
		
00:43:54 --> 00:43:56
			Now what about someone
		
00:43:59 --> 00:44:01
			but the
		
00:44:05 --> 00:44:05
			question
		
00:44:10 --> 00:44:11
			is the first sociology associate
		
00:44:15 --> 00:44:15
			family
		
00:44:16 --> 00:44:18
			narrated by the name when
		
00:44:27 --> 00:44:29
			he said he was living in
		
00:44:30 --> 00:44:31
			an Cova
		
00:44:37 --> 00:44:44
			when you move to a bigger city, so anyone who heard this hate and Cooper was also
		
00:44:47 --> 00:44:48
			anyone who heard it
		
00:45:00 --> 00:45:05
			So what about if we don't know? And we don't have to make a vlog
		
00:45:06 --> 00:45:09
			every so often, but we have no idea when the night before or after.
		
00:45:14 --> 00:45:16
			It's supposed to just sit by himself.
		
00:45:17 --> 00:45:19
			Because then he talks about these things.
		
00:45:41 --> 00:45:45
			eddies were between hesitant and strong. We can
		
00:45:50 --> 00:45:53
			relate to this topic we realize what's the difference between
		
00:45:59 --> 00:46:03
			when the scores of hideous say that someone's heavies are monka?
		
00:46:16 --> 00:46:17
			is heavy,
		
00:46:21 --> 00:46:21
			heavy,
		
00:46:25 --> 00:46:26
			heavy,
		
00:46:29 --> 00:46:30
			heavy
		
00:46:31 --> 00:46:32
			metal book
		
00:46:46 --> 00:46:48
			he narrates the next one.
		
00:46:55 --> 00:46:55
			Do
		
00:46:57 --> 00:46:59
			you like Medicare?
		
00:47:02 --> 00:47:03
			Medicaid?
		
00:47:07 --> 00:47:09
			He received a raise.
		
00:47:29 --> 00:47:34
			Okay. That's what we're that's what we're trying to do. I said we have to distinguish between these
features.
		
00:47:35 --> 00:47:36
			Well,
		
00:47:38 --> 00:47:39
			I'll just tell you what three,
		
00:47:42 --> 00:47:42
			three,
		
00:47:51 --> 00:47:54
			according to the earlier stones going to the 30 stores
		
00:47:55 --> 00:47:58
			means something
		
00:48:00 --> 00:48:02
			that's only narrated from one person
		
00:48:03 --> 00:48:04
			like
		
00:48:06 --> 00:48:14
			even if that person has stepped up, it means Canada degenerating in such a way that the other people
do not marry.
		
00:48:22 --> 00:48:24
			Actually, you can find that
		
00:48:27 --> 00:48:30
			the lowest was used this word is this term. And
		
00:48:33 --> 00:48:40
			to me, this is generated by owning and controlling restaurants.
		
00:48:41 --> 00:48:44
			So we have to understand the first case we have to distinguish between what the
		
00:48:49 --> 00:48:51
			earliest had been on before
		
00:48:52 --> 00:48:52
			and later.
		
00:48:59 --> 00:49:01
			They say you've got a headache
		
00:49:03 --> 00:49:05
			or is heavy.
		
00:49:09 --> 00:49:10
			This is stated by
		
00:49:11 --> 00:49:16
			the heart he was very kindness in the words the team's never call anyone a liar.
		
00:49:17 --> 00:49:18
			He tries to be very soft.
		
00:49:19 --> 00:49:21
			If a salt says about someone.
		
00:49:23 --> 00:49:26
			This means this person's hate to be rejected.
		
00:49:33 --> 00:49:37
			General MacArthur is a description of the very
		
00:49:38 --> 00:49:40
			description of an area that
		
00:49:41 --> 00:49:42
			are to be rejected.
		
00:49:48 --> 00:49:50
			That the first one, the first one, as I said,
		
00:49:51 --> 00:49:56
			if you're talking about the early generations, that doesn't necessarily mean even as the rejected
thing.
		
00:50:00 --> 00:50:05
			So let's move on to talking about the person. The guy he is a very weak narrative.
		
00:50:09 --> 00:50:09
			I guess,
		
00:50:10 --> 00:50:12
			in the terminology of the leaders
		
00:50:20 --> 00:50:20
			have you
		
00:50:24 --> 00:50:25
			ever
		
00:50:27 --> 00:50:27
			wondered.
		
00:50:35 --> 00:50:39
			The third one is the dimension here relates Medicare
		
00:50:41 --> 00:50:44
			k now this is not a description of the merrier.
		
00:50:47 --> 00:50:49
			In other words, you're not saying that the narrative is weak
		
00:50:50 --> 00:50:53
			to say about someone that you relate to, but here we are not saying that this.
		
00:50:56 --> 00:50:57
			But the person may be
		
00:50:59 --> 00:51:02
			what he has some shadow some strange reports, the solitary reports that are
		
00:51:06 --> 00:51:06
			different.
		
00:51:25 --> 00:51:25
			Number
		
00:51:31 --> 00:51:39
			30. Related is some rejected. Sometimes it's the case that she narrated Medicare, but he himself
		
00:51:40 --> 00:51:43
			but he knows Medicare was rejected
		
00:51:44 --> 00:51:45
			from the people
		
00:51:49 --> 00:51:51
			he wishes himself enough distinguish between
		
00:51:52 --> 00:51:57
			nice and simple, it is definitely just testing on the information he got.
		
00:51:58 --> 00:52:06
			So when they say the key replacement of key, it doesn't necessarily mean that in fact, most likely
they're using for that for some of them.
		
00:52:07 --> 00:52:07
			But
		
00:52:21 --> 00:52:22
			what this means is that
		
00:52:24 --> 00:52:24
			you're
		
00:52:27 --> 00:52:29
			if you if you come across this case,
		
00:52:30 --> 00:52:33
			you might find some hate that the strengths
		
00:52:35 --> 00:52:37
			are that they're not people that were rejected.
		
00:52:39 --> 00:52:42
			It means this is not the ones to be blamed for that
		
00:52:44 --> 00:52:50
			or either in Solitaire reports, once in which is different with other people are rejected, but
otherwise.
		
00:53:02 --> 00:53:02
			This
		
00:53:05 --> 00:53:09
			is not this is not a description of an area as being a weakness
		
00:53:12 --> 00:53:14
			does not mean that he's a weakness.
		
00:53:32 --> 00:53:32
			Morning.
		
00:53:40 --> 00:53:41
			As in the case of
		
00:53:46 --> 00:53:49
			all marriages are made.
		
00:53:54 --> 00:53:59
			Not all one category, but they're different categories and again, and it discloses
		
00:54:08 --> 00:54:12
			the first very small principles, I wanted to put it all in one place.
		
00:54:15 --> 00:54:16
			This is what made me a little bit late.
		
00:54:18 --> 00:54:25
			I asked the software to print 17 copies and software has to download copies of all the fonts.
		
00:54:45 --> 00:54:47
			personally make all the corrections
		
00:54:54 --> 00:54:56
			have noticed that he has six categories again with
		
00:54:59 --> 00:54:59
			the Delete
		
00:55:04 --> 00:55:05
			around the
		
00:55:13 --> 00:55:13
			kitchen
		
00:55:21 --> 00:55:24
			again, yeah, the earliest stars had no we had five
		
00:55:25 --> 00:55:26
			forecasts
		
00:55:28 --> 00:55:30
			as you go down from the first category
		
00:55:40 --> 00:55:42
			any questions about any of those terms
		
00:56:23 --> 00:56:24
			get behind
		
00:56:57 --> 00:56:59
			start with grief and
		
00:57:00 --> 00:57:10
			we're still going down. And before we started with the best went down to the almost half, we could
have prevented now we're starting with that
		
00:57:17 --> 00:57:18
			from the third category down
		
00:57:23 --> 00:57:24
			visa
		
00:57:30 --> 00:57:33
			The first category here, you might have done
		
00:57:37 --> 00:57:38
			the rest
		
00:57:48 --> 00:57:50
			if this is the only thing that they gave us
		
00:58:01 --> 00:58:01
			the first
		
00:58:08 --> 00:58:10
			first of all supporting evidence
		
00:58:11 --> 00:58:14
			that removes the doubt of positivity
		
00:58:15 --> 00:58:16
			in Arabic.
		
00:58:27 --> 00:58:29
			The first group are terms that are that are sets of different
		
00:58:32 --> 00:58:40
			terms that are not that harsh. For example, there are some statements about him and he has
weaknesses and criticizes some discussion in
		
00:58:42 --> 00:58:42
			his
		
00:58:44 --> 00:58:45
			word I can come up with a
		
00:58:49 --> 00:58:54
			category that the terms get a little bit stronger like we rejected him he never
		
00:58:58 --> 00:58:59
			get stronger The next category bear
		
00:59:05 --> 00:59:08
			with me, that's why
		
00:59:09 --> 00:59:09
			that's why the
		
00:59:13 --> 00:59:17
			third category stronger very weak did not record any other words the nothing
		
00:59:21 --> 00:59:23
			is nothing is not worth anything
		
00:59:25 --> 00:59:26
			significant.
		
00:59:27 --> 00:59:28
			And those
		
00:59:30 --> 00:59:32
			are not allowed to ericom
		
00:59:38 --> 00:59:39
			Yeah, pretty much.
		
00:59:45 --> 00:59:46
			The fourth one
		
00:59:48 --> 00:59:53
			fourth one is Gani firms just short of calling the very low like is implemented or
		
00:59:57 --> 00:59:58
			excuse a fifth one
		
00:59:59 --> 00:59:59
			is
		
01:00:00 --> 01:00:11
			Wrong again like liar, antichrist forger. And the sixth category are those people who are an
extremist when it comes to fortune at the greatest layer of people is extremely
		
01:00:14 --> 01:00:15
			long term by the way
		
01:00:17 --> 01:00:17
			meaning
		
01:00:23 --> 01:00:24
			use the term a lot
		
01:00:32 --> 01:00:32
			like
		
01:00:35 --> 01:00:35
			this
		
01:00:40 --> 01:00:43
			in this particular book, you will find a similar
		
01:00:52 --> 01:00:53
			question
		
01:00:57 --> 01:00:57
			after
		
01:01:09 --> 01:01:12
			the second port Edward
		
01:01:13 --> 01:01:15
			cold, very weak,
		
01:01:33 --> 01:01:35
			very good guy we don't have
		
01:01:38 --> 01:01:39
			hundreds of them.
		
01:01:40 --> 01:01:44
			We're fairly certain that there's not too many
		
01:01:45 --> 01:01:51
			but who cannot use any one of them while the last two categories that are considered canny
fabricated
		
01:01:56 --> 01:01:57
			that's what makes
		
01:02:30 --> 01:02:30
			invite you
		
01:02:32 --> 01:02:33
			to join
		
01:02:37 --> 01:02:38
			us.
		
01:03:06 --> 01:03:07
			wrong with this
		
01:04:19 --> 01:04:20
			without permission.
		
01:04:31 --> 01:04:32
			Get
		
01:04:36 --> 01:04:36
			those
		
01:04:52 --> 01:04:54
			a very weak because we cannot trust how we go.
		
01:05:02 --> 01:05:02
			So
		
01:05:10 --> 01:05:11
			what does this term mean?
		
01:05:13 --> 01:05:14
			In this book?
		
01:05:15 --> 01:05:16
			What does this term mean?
		
01:05:21 --> 01:05:22
			Because he heard you saying,
		
01:05:27 --> 01:05:28
			You almost
		
01:05:30 --> 01:05:30
			can't
		
01:05:33 --> 01:05:34
			see, what does he mean by
		
01:05:35 --> 01:05:37
			word? What do you mean by that there's something missing.
		
01:05:39 --> 01:05:41
			Danny is supported.
		
01:05:45 --> 01:05:48
			So you see that Germany makes it seem like it's heading for assistance.
		
01:05:49 --> 01:05:50
			Only.
		
01:05:52 --> 01:05:52
			Yeah.
		
01:05:55 --> 01:05:57
			Teddy research, this is what I mean by this.
		
01:06:06 --> 01:06:09
			Different scholars also had their own terminology, as I said,
		
01:06:13 --> 01:06:16
			Buhari was very soft in his terms, he
		
01:06:20 --> 01:06:20
			rejected
		
01:06:23 --> 01:06:25
			some discussion about him, this means is very weak,
		
01:06:27 --> 01:06:29
			shall be told one of the students
		
01:06:52 --> 01:06:55
			he used to use these terms like he's a liar
		
01:06:58 --> 01:07:00
			the brain itself a new term and make them
		
01:07:02 --> 01:07:08
			not say why I was saying his papers, or he or he has nothing to do Basically,
		
01:07:09 --> 01:07:14
			what this means is that Chevy or more than he needs to be saved, they need the person
		
01:07:17 --> 01:07:17
			shipping.
		
01:07:18 --> 01:07:19
			So you have to
		
01:07:21 --> 01:07:25
			you have to be familiar with the terminology the difference.
		
01:07:26 --> 01:07:28
			Like for example, speeding up
		
01:07:41 --> 01:07:42
			the forecast like
		
01:07:46 --> 01:07:47
			you know, but I
		
01:07:48 --> 01:07:50
			mean, this one is incomplete.
		
01:08:06 --> 01:08:06
			Listening.
		
01:08:20 --> 01:08:21
			As a matter of degree,
		
01:08:22 --> 01:08:26
			they won't use the term that someone else uses, like, no one will use
		
01:08:30 --> 01:08:31
			a consistent
		
01:08:36 --> 01:08:37
			user.
		
01:08:39 --> 01:08:40
			And
		
01:08:43 --> 01:08:43
			usually,
		
01:08:47 --> 01:08:50
			it was consistent, but you use one serving
		
01:08:53 --> 01:08:54
			two things.
		
01:08:55 --> 01:08:58
			Sometimes we use it for narratives from narrative to hate,
		
01:09:03 --> 01:09:05
			or being someone who's weak.
		
01:09:07 --> 01:09:10
			So we have studied the narrative to be someone who was never supposed
		
01:09:12 --> 01:09:12
			to be seen
		
01:09:22 --> 01:09:22
			a
		
01:09:24 --> 01:09:24
			sharpie.
		
01:09:43 --> 01:09:44
			Okay, now
		
01:09:49 --> 01:09:52
			that we have another problem in the book about terrorism.
		
01:09:54 --> 01:09:58
			You will often find contradictory statements about the same
		
01:10:00 --> 01:10:04
			Sometimes you'll find contradictory statements about the same narrator from the same scope,
		
01:10:18 --> 01:10:21
			books and biography about disciplinarians.
		
01:10:23 --> 01:10:29
			You usually sometimes you'll find statements from different scholars about that Mary
		
01:10:30 --> 01:10:34
			sometimes you find contradictory statements from the same scholar about that one
		
01:10:43 --> 01:10:44
			in the second case
		
01:10:46 --> 01:10:51
			the second case different segments from the same store, but
		
01:10:53 --> 01:10:57
			it could be two to water for weeds which some of them already mentioned.
		
01:10:58 --> 01:10:59
			First of all
		
01:11:03 --> 01:11:06
			I could have learned some new information about this area
		
01:11:10 --> 01:11:13
			and that gets you out to study to find what was his letter
		
01:11:16 --> 01:11:16
			better
		
01:11:31 --> 01:11:33
			to me, and he asked me about
		
01:11:40 --> 01:11:41
			some of the city and he says you must
		
01:11:45 --> 01:11:45
			have your license
		
01:11:48 --> 01:11:48
			so
		
01:12:02 --> 01:12:03
			we have to study to see what was the
		
01:12:06 --> 01:12:08
			second as I mentioned earlier
		
01:12:19 --> 01:12:20
			now we're going to the
		
01:12:21 --> 01:12:24
			second one is this sometimes because the way the question that
		
01:12:28 --> 01:12:36
			sometimes for example, someone would ask about what do you think about so and so's nice pace about
		
01:12:39 --> 01:12:41
			that particular mistake?
		
01:12:46 --> 01:12:50
			Sometimes the word question that leads to
		
01:12:51 --> 01:12:55
			a different essence so it seems like one day one day you must be nice
		
01:13:01 --> 01:13:04
			have to study to see how the questions that
		
01:13:05 --> 01:13:08
			are sometimes appearing apparently contradicting
		
01:13:13 --> 01:13:14
			similar to that
		
01:13:15 --> 01:13:15
			and I mentioned
		
01:13:17 --> 01:13:25
			this in one case you might be narrow you might be comparing the narrator to someone and in other
cases comparing to someone else so that was
		
01:13:29 --> 01:13:32
			very nice. Yes. I would say no.
		
01:13:38 --> 01:13:38
			Might
		
01:13:41 --> 01:13:43
			have asked me to prepare most of
		
01:13:44 --> 01:13:44
			my
		
01:13:54 --> 01:13:56
			statements, although they seem like
		
01:14:13 --> 01:14:13
			a setlist
		
01:14:15 --> 01:14:17
			Yeah, this is like new information or
		
01:14:31 --> 01:14:31
			new.
		
01:14:38 --> 01:14:40
			Okay, we're there.
		
01:14:43 --> 01:14:48
			Warrior One. One. The narrator differences been brought in from different
		
01:14:55 --> 01:14:57
			the opinion of the majority of the scores
		
01:14:59 --> 01:14:59
			put into a cookie
		
01:15:02 --> 01:15:05
			It just takes precedence over others.
		
01:15:23 --> 01:15:23
			What is the
		
01:15:25 --> 01:15:28
			what is the reason?
		
01:15:32 --> 01:15:33
			It could be
		
01:15:34 --> 01:15:34
			another
		
01:15:37 --> 01:15:38
			another strong.
		
01:15:44 --> 01:15:51
			Because, for example, if you if you say to someone that's stuck up, it means according to what
you've known, someone else says.
		
01:15:53 --> 01:15:56
			This means obviously that this person has some information that you don't know.
		
01:15:58 --> 01:15:59
			So therefore we take his information.
		
01:16:03 --> 01:16:06
			But this is not the case. There's some
		
01:16:07 --> 01:16:10
			there's some conditions that that goes back to the
		
01:16:17 --> 01:16:18
			just due to
		
01:16:20 --> 01:16:21
			subjective.
		
01:16:29 --> 01:16:33
			opinion. The second test was first opinions opinion, the majority of the
		
01:16:36 --> 01:16:37
			second opinion,
		
01:16:42 --> 01:16:48
			scholars that say the narrator is either that there are more number than those who make the jury,
then we
		
01:16:49 --> 01:16:50
			go before the majority
		
01:16:51 --> 01:16:52
			vote.
		
01:16:56 --> 01:16:57
			What's wrong with that?
		
01:17:03 --> 01:17:05
			And it goes back to the reasoning of the person.
		
01:17:06 --> 01:17:09
			And if these people know that this person is not acceptable,
		
01:17:13 --> 01:17:15
			even if there's just one or two scores to see that we know that
		
01:17:16 --> 01:17:19
			if they can prove that we talked about before
		
01:17:23 --> 01:17:25
			they can prove that procrastinating takes precedence over
		
01:17:38 --> 01:17:39
			the reasoning of the person.
		
01:17:42 --> 01:17:44
			Another opinion, which is going
		
01:17:48 --> 01:17:51
			to go by for the better stores in general
		
01:17:56 --> 01:17:56
			says
		
01:18:00 --> 01:18:01
			which one would
		
01:18:04 --> 01:18:06
			you like you wait,
		
01:18:07 --> 01:18:09
			there was no period the same way
		
01:18:11 --> 01:18:14
			that our quality says that you give to someone who's not that good.
		
01:18:17 --> 01:18:18
			We give them
		
01:18:29 --> 01:18:29
			sometimes.
		
01:18:31 --> 01:18:37
			Sometimes the body shows that the earliest defeat was incorrect.
		
01:18:38 --> 01:18:39
			Yeah.
		
01:18:44 --> 01:18:52
			So But usually, that's the case, the badness color, that's what we're talking about. We're talking
about people who are better and have more information than
		
01:18:53 --> 01:18:54
			what's above.
		
01:18:58 --> 01:19:00
			The one who was alive during his time or
		
01:19:01 --> 01:19:05
			who could study attendees and meet with his students and maybe even meet with the first
		
01:19:11 --> 01:19:12
			permission
		
01:19:24 --> 01:19:25
			may not be the case with
		
01:19:28 --> 01:19:35
			getting to see his mistakes, the one who was alive in the 70s listening to him, at least for the
students. He's the one I was seeing and mistakes that
		
01:19:46 --> 01:19:47
			we have
		
01:19:51 --> 01:19:52
			to make that assumption.
		
01:19:54 --> 01:19:55
			We're assuming
		
01:19:56 --> 01:19:58
			the conditions for critical
		
01:20:01 --> 01:20:03
			Most times the contradictions are not
		
01:20:07 --> 01:20:08
			real or strong contradiction
		
01:20:13 --> 01:20:15
			is divided into three categories.
		
01:20:18 --> 01:20:19
			Those areas
		
01:20:20 --> 01:20:24
			those reports are accessible without any need for further support.
		
01:20:38 --> 01:20:46
			seven categories those narrators may be used for supporting evidence and who may be supported by
others and
		
01:20:54 --> 01:20:59
			categorize those narrators that are to be rejected and cannot even be used for supporting
		
01:21:00 --> 01:21:02
			any pretty much you can divide all categories.
		
01:21:03 --> 01:21:04
			I mean, all there is
		
01:21:06 --> 01:21:15
			if you keep these three categories in mind the general category you'll find that there's really not
that much competition between what disclose the thing about
		
01:21:17 --> 01:21:22
			which one is competition or fiction is usually a matter of degree.
		
01:21:23 --> 01:21:29
			But if you talk about these three major categories, one is not saying this from the third day
whereas someone else
		
01:21:30 --> 01:21:31
			has very rare
		
01:21:32 --> 01:21:35
			and usually within these categories, some are putting him at the top of the category some
		
01:21:46 --> 01:21:47
			some people said he was talking about
		
01:21:52 --> 01:21:52
			video
		
01:21:55 --> 01:21:58
			we pick out those that are rejected
		
01:22:28 --> 01:22:29
			a question