Can we, for example, rely on the rulings of the hadiths found in the book *al-Jami' al-Saghir*, given that you have stated it contains typographical errors and some delusions?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : The book is indeed *al-Jami' al-Saghir*, which I mentioned contains typographical errors and some delusions that may appear in the hadith. Can we, for example, rely on the hadiths regarding rulings? Some people judge them as weak, while others judge them as authentic.
The Shaykh : This is it
The questioner : Weak...
The Shaykh : This is it
The questioner : This is a weak hadith.
The Shaykh : My brother, this is the principle, as we said regarding the symbols. We say that for every authentication or weakening, no one can be claimed to be infallible. I heard Malik say: "None of us is free from error, and error is attributed to us". And I said earlier, and I think you were present when I said, that the criterion is the majority of the author's work, or whether the author is correct or not.
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : So, if the majority of this author's work is authentication, and the majority of that author's work is also authentication, and if the majority is correct in both cases, then rely on it. And this does not mean that he is infallible; it is possible that an error occurred. I mentioned in some of the sessions we held in the Kingdom during this trip that someone told me something that might be the case, but it is not in my mind.
He said to me, "Sometimes you mention, for example, a hadith in *Sahih al-Jami'* and you say it is authentic. We then refer to *al-Arwah* which you cited, and we find that you judged it as weak there." Do you understand up to here? Good.
He said to me, "What is the reason?" I said, "Either it is an error by the author or an error by the transmitter, meaning the one who transmitted it. And whatever the case, we are all human, we err and we hit the mark, so no one is free from error. Sometimes the error really does occur from the transmitter. Why? Some Shaykhs, may Allah guide us and them, say, 'How can you say this hadith is weak and cite *al-Sahihah* for its weakening, and conversely, say a hadith is authentic and cite *al-Da'ifah* for its authentication?' This is either ignorance, and I consider it unlikely that a noble, distinguished scholar would fall into such ignorance, or it is neglect out of envy, hatred, and malice, unfortunately."
And the reason is known to everyone who engages in this science. For example, in *al-Sahihah*, I am speaking about a hadith that appears at the top with its number. It has multiple chains, so I mention the chains. Then one of these chains contains an addition to the text placed at the top. I clarify that the hadith with this addition is weak. This hadith with this addition is weak in *Da'if al-Jami'*. So I say "weak," and the source cited is what? *al-Ahadith al-Sahihah*. How is this?
This is the reason, and the reverse is exactly the reverse. I am working on tracing a hadith in *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah* with the full wording or a full story, but I search and scrutinize, and I find that some paragraphs in this story or this long hadith are authentic in other hadiths. So I clarify their authenticity in the book *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah*. When such a hadith is mentioned in *Sahih al-Jami'*, I say "authentic, refer to *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah*," because the occasion arose and I extracted this hadith with this wording in *Silsilat al-Da'ifah*. The point is, perhaps the one who found it difficult is that I authenticated and cited *al-Da'ifah*, or I authenticated and cited *al-Arwah*. For example, in *al-Arwah*, I weakened a hadith that contains an addition, but during the tracing, I mentioned the hadith in abbreviated form as it appears in *Sahih al-Jami'*, so I cited *al-Arwah*. It is possible that a hasty person referred to *al-Arwah*, found the same hadith with the addition, and saw it judged as weak, but he did not have the patience to follow the tracing in its length, so he does not arrive at the result I indicated with the word "authentic." It is possible that it is an error on his part, so I do not exonerate myself, and I do not exonerate myself.
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : The book is indeed *al-Jami' al-Saghir*, which I mentioned contains typographical errors and some delusions that may appear in the hadith. Can we, for example, rely on the hadiths regarding rulings? Some people judge them as weak, while others judge them as authentic.
The Shaykh : This is it
The questioner : Weak...
The Shaykh : This is it
The questioner : This is a weak hadith.
The Shaykh : My brother, this is the principle, as we said regarding the symbols. We say that for every authentication or weakening, no one can be claimed to be infallible. I heard Malik say: "None of us is free from error, and error is attributed to us". And I said earlier, and I think you were present when I said, that the criterion is the majority of the author's work, or whether the author is correct or not.
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : So, if the majority of this author's work is authentication, and the majority of that author's work is also authentication, and if the majority is correct in both cases, then rely on it. And this does not mean that he is infallible; it is possible that an error occurred. I mentioned in some of the sessions we held in the Kingdom during this trip that someone told me something that might be the case, but it is not in my mind.
He said to me, "Sometimes you mention, for example, a hadith in *Sahih al-Jami'* and you say it is authentic. We then refer to *al-Arwah* which you cited, and we find that you judged it as weak there." Do you understand up to here? Good.
He said to me, "What is the reason?" I said, "Either it is an error by the author or an error by the transmitter, meaning the one who transmitted it. And whatever the case, we are all human, we err and we hit the mark, so no one is free from error. Sometimes the error really does occur from the transmitter. Why? Some Shaykhs, may Allah guide us and them, say, 'How can you say this hadith is weak and cite *al-Sahihah* for its weakening, and conversely, say a hadith is authentic and cite *al-Da'ifah* for its authentication?' This is either ignorance, and I consider it unlikely that a noble, distinguished scholar would fall into such ignorance, or it is neglect out of envy, hatred, and malice, unfortunately."
And the reason is known to everyone who engages in this science. For example, in *al-Sahihah*, I am speaking about a hadith that appears at the top with its number. It has multiple chains, so I mention the chains. Then one of these chains contains an addition to the text placed at the top. I clarify that the hadith with this addition is weak. This hadith with this addition is weak in *Da'if al-Jami'*. So I say "weak," and the source cited is what? *al-Ahadith al-Sahihah*. How is this?
This is the reason, and the reverse is exactly the reverse. I am working on tracing a hadith in *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah* with the full wording or a full story, but I search and scrutinize, and I find that some paragraphs in this story or this long hadith are authentic in other hadiths. So I clarify their authenticity in the book *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah*. When such a hadith is mentioned in *Sahih al-Jami'*, I say "authentic, refer to *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah*," because the occasion arose and I extracted this hadith with this wording in *Silsilat al-Da'ifah*. The point is, perhaps the one who found it difficult is that I authenticated and cited *al-Da'ifah*, or I authenticated and cited *al-Arwah*. For example, in *al-Arwah*, I weakened a hadith that contains an addition, but during the tracing, I mentioned the hadith in abbreviated form as it appears in *Sahih al-Jami'*, so I cited *al-Arwah*. It is possible that a hasty person referred to *al-Arwah*, found the same hadith with the addition, and saw it judged as weak, but he did not have the patience to follow the tracing in its length, so he does not arrive at the result I indicated with the word "authentic." It is possible that it is an error on his part, so I do not exonerate myself, and I do not exonerate myself.