Explaining the reasons that cause some researchers to stumble, leading them to authenticate or grade as good a weak hadith.

The Shaykh : It is perhaps useful in this first lesson, or in this introduction before teaching *Riyad al-Salihin*, to mention one of the reasons that causes some distinguished scholars who distinguish between authentic and weak hadiths to stumble, authenticating or at least grading as good what does not deserve such grading. One of these reasons is that, as is the nature of people in general—except for the few and rare ones whom Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) has chosen and saved from imitation and rigid adherence to following their fathers and grandfathers, even if they were scholars—this imitation varies among people in degree, and the one who is saved is the one who adopts a methodology for himself, abandoning imitation and turning away from it as much as he is able. This is the one who is saved, even if he himself may be compelled to imitate, because a person cannot exercise independent legal reasoning in every matter of research and verification that arises in the science of hadith, or in the science of jurisprudence, or in the principles of hadith, or in the principles of jurisprudence; imitation is unavoidable. However, there is a difference between one type of imitation and another, and between one imitator and another. There is an imitator who submits to the one he imitates as he submits to his Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), the one who is protected from error, as He (the Exalted) said: And there is another imitator who imitates without realizing that his first duty is to follow with knowledge, and that he imitates only when he is unable to follow with knowledge. This second type of imitation is the concern of scholars, whereas the first type, which is making imitation a methodology, is the methodology of the general public and the majority of Muslims, and this is an error that is not permissible in the religion of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He).
I said: The original principle is the absence of imitation except out of dire necessity, and this is where some scholars fall into error. In my opinion, this type of imitation is what causes the like of Imam al-Nawawi to fall into some of the errors we mentioned earlier. For example, he comes to a hadith—and we will mention examples during our study of this book, if Allah wills—where he attributes it to Imam Abu Dawud. Abu Dawud had studied with his teachers, and he himself stated in some of his books that what Abu Dawud was silent about in his *Sunan* is *salih* (sound). Knowing that this term is from Abu Dawud, and that *salih* is a term in which scholars differ in interpretation—a difference I am not currently in a position to explain and clarify the correct view of—I want to mention what is necessary regarding Imam al-Nawawi. Namely, when Imam al-Nawawi states in some of his books that what Abu Dawud was silent about is *salih*, he states this explicitly and mentions that this matter is not consistent in the hadiths of his book *Sunan*, as we mentioned regarding the disagreement in interpreting *salih*. Despite this, and despite his statement that this is not a consistent rule, and his explicit statement that Abu Dawud (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates weak hadiths in his book explicitly, yet he remains silent about them. And stranger than all of this is that this Imam al-Nawawi says in some of his books, including his great book *al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab*: "This is a hadith narrated by Abu Dawud, and its chain is weak, and Abu Dawud was silent about it because of the obviousness of its weakness." This is a correct statement, because you will find the hadith with a chain from a man from so-and-so, a man who is not named, so he is unknown, yet Abu Dawud was silent about it. So Imam al-Nawawi says he was silent about it because of the clarity of its weakness. Therefore, we should not submit to every hadith about which Abu Dawud was silent. Rather, research is necessary. Of course, I do not mean by my saying "research is necessary" that every individual person must do this, because this is a science that is specific to some individuals among scholars. So what do we say about the general public? Rather, I want to say regarding those popular scholars whose only concern was compilation and gathering without searching and verifying, and who are capable of performing the duty of distinguishing: it is obligatory for them not to submit to this rule: "What Abu Dawud was silent about is *salih*," because of what al-Nawawi himself mentioned, that Abu Dawud (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates some hadiths of encouragement and warning, like Imam al-Suyuti, for example, in *al-Jami' al-Saghir* and *al-Kabir*. Imam al-Nawawi may have intended to include in his book only, as we said, authentic and good hadiths. So how did he include hadiths about which he was silent and attributed them to Abu Dawud? Because the rule for him was that what was silent about is *salih*, so he relied on it. Then we do not know if he was able to devote himself to verifying the statement in every hadith Abu Dawud attributed and did so, and then his pen slipped, or if he did not devote himself to it. And this second matter is what I believe is more likely, because the obviousness of the man's obscurity to the one who looks at the hadith... is not hidden from the like of Imam al-Nawawi, or from someone below him. It appears that he applied the general rule and relied on it, and did not devote himself to looking carefully at the chain of every hadith. This is an example of the reasons that led the Imam to include some weak hadiths in his book. Also included in this is his reliance on the authentication and grading as good by Imam al-Tirmidhi. Imam al-Tirmidhi is known for being lenient in authenticating hadiths and in weakening them. And there is another reason that appears to the researcher and verifier: the copies of al-Tirmidhi differ in some hadiths radically. In some copies, even printed ones, you find it says "Hadith hasan sahih" (good and authentic), and in the margin you find "In a copy: Hadith hasan gharib" (good and strange), and in another copy: "Hadith gharib" (strange). And there is a great difference between these copies. In this case, the researcher and verifier must first verify whether all copies of al-Tirmidhi agree. If they agree, he does not rely on al-Tirmidhi, because the scholars said that al-Tirmidhi is lenient in authentication, and therefore it is not permissible for a scholar to rely on him; rather, he should review what he authenticated or graded as good. But if the copies differ, this is even more compelling and more likely for the scholar, and even the capable student of knowledge in this science, to verify the correct copy that matches what the scholars of hadith are upon in their principles in the critique and vindication of narrators, and in their statements in reconciliation and in denunciation. This is what I wanted to mention before teaching the book *Riyad al-Salihin* by Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him).