You stated in a hadith in the commentary on the Tahawi Creed that it is not in the two Sahihs, and you erred in criticizing the commentator.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Your annotations on the Tahawi Creed in the verification, in the tracing of hadiths in the two Sahihs, which Ibn Abi al-‘Izz al-Hanafi attributed to them, you said: It is an error on his part. But Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in *Minhaj al-Sunnah* and al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) in *al-Ikhtisar* attributed the same hadith to the two Sahihs as Ibn Abi al-‘Izz al-Hanafi did, and you said, O Shaykh, that it is not found in the two Sahihs?
The Shaykh : O Shaykh, the one in front of you is mistaken. O Shaykh, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is mistaken. What is there in this?
The questioner : I mean, one might say: Shaykh al-Islam and al-Dhahabi are an authority, and they attribute hadiths to the two Sahihs.
The Shaykh : I mean, if he is an authority, does he not make mistakes?
The questioner : But if both agree in their attribution to the two Sahihs?
The Shaykh : What is the condition for this? Al-Dhahabi may have taken it from Ibn Taymiyyah, because it is not the case that whenever a man extracts a hadith, he returns to the same source. Rather, he has before him a source from the sources he relies upon. Al-Dhahabi was a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, so it is possible that he relied on him. It is also possible that each of them erred. If one of us wants to accuse the other of error, and especially someone like me, I say: This is not correct. If I say that this is not in the two Sahihs, let the one who accuses me of error present the reality: Look at the hadith in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, in such-and-such book, in such-and-such chapter, with such-and-such number, if the hadith is numbered. This is how proof is established. As for saying, "So-and-so said such-and-such, and you said such-and-such," what is beyond that? Either the one who said it is the one who erred, or I am the one who erred. And which of us does not err? Is there anyone who does not err?
No, there is not. So, nothing follows from this except by establishing proof, where the one speaking today says: You, O Shaykh, said that this hadith is not in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, but it is found in such-and-such. But all this talk that you are mentioning is floating. What is the hadith, for example, that I denied its attribution to the Sahih, while Shaykh al-Islam, and al-Dhahabi in addition, attributed it to the Sahih? What is it?
The questioner : O Shaykh, I read it in the book of Isma‘il al-Ansari.
The Shaykh : Leave Shaykh Isma‘il al-Ansari alone. May Allah guide you. We did not know that this man was hateful and envious. It is enough for him that he came to defend a hadith that is the pillar of the innovators in their permission of seeking nearness to Allah through a means (tawassul) with the created. He did not try to raise the rank of the hadith to the level of hasan (good) and defend Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, whom I refuted, as he mentioned among the etiquettes of going out to the mosque:Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 22:78 So the matter became great for him, and he appeared more Wahhabi than the Wahhabis, where he defended Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab in a hadith that Shaykh al-Ansari himself, may Allah guide us and him, transmitted from Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, who in turn transmitted from Ibn Taymiyyah, that the chain of the hadith is weak. Does not this apply to him: "They destroy their own homes with their own hands"?
The Shaykh : O Shaykh, the one in front of you is mistaken. O Shaykh, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is mistaken. What is there in this?
The questioner : I mean, one might say: Shaykh al-Islam and al-Dhahabi are an authority, and they attribute hadiths to the two Sahihs.
The Shaykh : I mean, if he is an authority, does he not make mistakes?
The questioner : But if both agree in their attribution to the two Sahihs?
The Shaykh : What is the condition for this? Al-Dhahabi may have taken it from Ibn Taymiyyah, because it is not the case that whenever a man extracts a hadith, he returns to the same source. Rather, he has before him a source from the sources he relies upon. Al-Dhahabi was a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, so it is possible that he relied on him. It is also possible that each of them erred. If one of us wants to accuse the other of error, and especially someone like me, I say: This is not correct. If I say that this is not in the two Sahihs, let the one who accuses me of error present the reality: Look at the hadith in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, in such-and-such book, in such-and-such chapter, with such-and-such number, if the hadith is numbered. This is how proof is established. As for saying, "So-and-so said such-and-such, and you said such-and-such," what is beyond that? Either the one who said it is the one who erred, or I am the one who erred. And which of us does not err? Is there anyone who does not err?
No, there is not. So, nothing follows from this except by establishing proof, where the one speaking today says: You, O Shaykh, said that this hadith is not in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, but it is found in such-and-such. But all this talk that you are mentioning is floating. What is the hadith, for example, that I denied its attribution to the Sahih, while Shaykh al-Islam, and al-Dhahabi in addition, attributed it to the Sahih? What is it?
The questioner : O Shaykh, I read it in the book of Isma‘il al-Ansari.
The Shaykh : Leave Shaykh Isma‘il al-Ansari alone. May Allah guide you. We did not know that this man was hateful and envious. It is enough for him that he came to defend a hadith that is the pillar of the innovators in their permission of seeking nearness to Allah through a means (tawassul) with the created. He did not try to raise the rank of the hadith to the level of hasan (good) and defend Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, whom I refuted, as he mentioned among the etiquettes of going out to the mosque: