Bulugh al-Maram
Bulugh al-Maram 95
وَعَنْ جَابِرٍ - رضى الله عنه - قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اَللَّهِ - صلى الله عليه وسلم -{ إِذَا تَغَوَّطَ اَلرَّجُلَانِ فَلْيَتَوَارَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا عَنْ صَاحِبِهِ, وَلَا يَتَحَدَّثَا. فَإِنَّ اَللَّهَ يَمْقُتُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ } رَوَاهُ . 1 وَصَحَّحَهُ اِبْنُ اَلسَّكَنِ, وَابْنُ اَلْقَطَّانِ, وَهُوَ مَعْلُول ٌ 2 .1 - كذا بالأصل دون ذكر من أخرجه، ولم أجده من حديث جابر، وهو عند أحمد وأبي داود من حديث أبي سعيد.2 - ضعيف. وانظر الأصل.
Unreviewed translation. All hadiths in this collection are available in five languages. Titles and introductions may remain in Arabic.
Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “When two men go to relieve themselves, each should screen himself from the other, and they should not talk, for Allah detests that.” It was transmitted; Ibn al-Sakan and Ibn al-Qattan authenticated it, though it is defective.
1 — The source text is as in the original, without naming who transmitted it. I did not find it as a report from Jabir; it is found in Ahmad and Abu Dawud as a report from Abu Sa‘id. 2 — Weak. See the original.
Notes and open questions — unreviewed
The main text attributes the report to Jabir, while the editorial note says this attribution was not found and identifies versions in Ahmad and Abu Dawud from Abu Sa‘id. Both statements are translated as written; the transmission source left unnamed in the main text remains unnamed.
The text also juxtaposes authentication by Ibn al-Sakan and Ibn al-Qattan with the annotation grading it weak and calling it defective.
وَعَنْ جَابِرٍ - رضى الله عنه - قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اَللَّهِ - صلى الله عليه وسلم -{ إِذَا تَغَوَّطَ اَلرَّجُلَانِ فَلْيَتَوَارَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا عَنْ صَاحِبِهِ, وَلَا يَتَحَدَّثَا.
The report is presented from Jabir, but the annotation says the editor did not find it as a report from Jabir and points to versions from Abu Sa‘id in Ahmad and Abu Dawud.
How should the transmission route for this wording be identified in a reviewed edition, given the original leaves the transmitter after rawahu unnamed?
1 وَصَحَّحَهُ اِبْنُ اَلسَّكَنِ, وَابْنُ اَلْقَطَّانِ, وَهُوَ مَعْلُول ٌ 2 .
The main text attributes authentication to Ibn al-Sakan and Ibn al-Qattan while also calling the report defective; the annotation separately grades it weak.
Do the judgments concern different routes or defects?