What is your opinion regarding Shaykh Muhammad Khalil Haras's correction of the hadith that interprets the verse:

The questioner : The strange thing is that Mahmoud Khalil Haras considers the hadith authentic in his book *Tawhid*...

The Shaykh : He has a book called *Tawhid*.

The questioner : In the book *Tawhid*, he explains the creed of the Salaf in the first... seventy pages with a good explanation of the names and attributes and everything. Then, after that, he moves on to mentioning the stories of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) from Adam to the last of the prophets.

The Shaykh: Good.

The questioner : He moves on to the topic of fitrah (the innate natural disposition) with a good explanation until he reaches this hadith, where he mentions that it is for Adam and Eve.

The questioner : It is amazing. This is my brother, due to his ignorance of hadith, and no blame is attached to him. Khalil al-Haras is, may Allah have mercy on him, one of our acquaintances and friends. I met him in Cairo at the center of the Ansar al-Sunnah group, and then I met him in Makkah when he was a professor there. But unfortunately, he is like all the doctors; they have no knowledge of the science of hadith at all. Therefore, it becomes apparent to the researcher in his comments on al-Suyuti's book *Al-Khasa'is al-Kubra* that he has no knowledge in this discipline, which is the science of hadith. It does not mean that these hadiths align with his logic and thought; rather, he sees them and rejects them without stopping to look at their chains of narration to see if they are authentic or not. Then, conversely, al-Suyuti cites some hadiths that are denounced and invalid, and you see the doctor pass over them as if they were nothing. Why? For two reasons: The first and most important reason is that he does not know the chain of the hadith is weak or fabricated, so he passes over it and moves on. Second: When the chain is weak or fabricated, it serves as the greatest warning to the knowledgeable person that there may be an anomaly in the text.
For example, a hadith comes to mind now regarding this, whose text is: , Al-Suyuti cites this hadith in the virtues of the Messenger (peace be upon him), which he was distinguished with over all the noble prophets. And this, in reality, if the hadith were authentic, would mean a distinctiveness for the Messenger (peace be upon him) beyond which there is no distinctiveness: that the criminals from the nation of the Messenger (peace be upon him), when they enter Hellfire, the heat of the fire they are afflicted with is like the heat of a bathroom, meaning something insignificant at all. This hadith is extremely weak or fabricated in terms of its chain of narration, and in terms of its text, it is one of the most deniable things possible, because it is established in "Al-Sahihayn" and others: . This is in "Al-Sahihayn"; so how did this hadith slip past him? Because he is not one of the people of hadith. So it is of this nature that the matter of Samurah's hadith slipped past him.