Introduction To The Science Of Hadeeth Part 10

Episode Notes

None

© Transcript (Experimental)

Disclaimer: Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We rely on volunters to edit. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.

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

Introduction To The Science Of Hadeeth Part 10
19.03MB