Is the issue of authentication a matter of personal opinion, in the sense that we find, for example, Ibn al-Jawzi mentioning authentic hadiths in his book *Al-Mawdu'at*? What is the reason for that, and what is
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah preserve you, O honorable father. Is the issue of authentication a matter of personal opinion, in the sense that we find Imam al-Hakim in his *Mustadrak* and Imam Ibn al-Jawzi mentioning authentic hadiths in his book *Al-Mawdu'at*? Why is there this discrepancy, and what is the methodology that a researcher follows in this issue? I ask for clarification, and may Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : This question is strange, because if we were to express it in a clear phrase, it would be like asking, "Why does a scholar make a mistake?" Is that a question? No one asks this question, because it is the nature of man to make mistakes. So, the one who is lenient made a mistake in his leniency, like al-Hakim and others, and the one who was strict and authenticated hadiths, yet weakened authentic hadiths or judged them to be fabricated, was being strict. So it is not said, "Why were you strict?" or "Why were you lenient?" The fundamental answer is: because he is a human being. The scholarly answer is that both the lenient and the strict established their basis for leniency or strictness on principles and rules they were convinced of, and they were mistaken in their conviction. So the matter comes back to asking, "Why did he make a mistake?" The answer is: because he is a human being. As for the details, the scholars of knowledge know them. For example, why does Ibn Hibban make a mistake by authenticating unknown narrators, as is well known to those engaged in this hadith? The fundamental, satisfying answer is: because he is a human being. The detailed scholarly answer is that his mistake, which we believe to be a mistake, was based on a rule he was convinced of. He says, "The default for every Muslim narrator is justice and integrity, so I say that even if I do not know his status, he is trustworthy." The researcher finds this explicitly in his books, saying, "So-and-so ibn So-and-so, I do not know him and I do not know his father," and he mentions this in his book *Al-Thiqat*, saying, "So-and-so ibn So-and-so is trustworthy," and next to that he says, "I do not know him and I do not know his father." So he established this authentication on a rule he was convinced of, but he was mistaken according to the majority, and he truly was mistaken. So both the lenient and the strict returned to their personal convictions, and they may be mistaken, which is the common case, or they may be correct. The point is that the scholar must exert effort to know the truth. Therefore, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said:.
Someone else.
The questioner : With this answer, we conclude our lesson for today, and we say to our Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good and prolong your life, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
The Shaykh : This question is strange, because if we were to express it in a clear phrase, it would be like asking, "Why does a scholar make a mistake?" Is that a question? No one asks this question, because it is the nature of man to make mistakes. So, the one who is lenient made a mistake in his leniency, like al-Hakim and others, and the one who was strict and authenticated hadiths, yet weakened authentic hadiths or judged them to be fabricated, was being strict. So it is not said, "Why were you strict?" or "Why were you lenient?" The fundamental answer is: because he is a human being. The scholarly answer is that both the lenient and the strict established their basis for leniency or strictness on principles and rules they were convinced of, and they were mistaken in their conviction. So the matter comes back to asking, "Why did he make a mistake?" The answer is: because he is a human being. As for the details, the scholars of knowledge know them. For example, why does Ibn Hibban make a mistake by authenticating unknown narrators, as is well known to those engaged in this hadith? The fundamental, satisfying answer is: because he is a human being. The detailed scholarly answer is that his mistake, which we believe to be a mistake, was based on a rule he was convinced of. He says, "The default for every Muslim narrator is justice and integrity, so I say that even if I do not know his status, he is trustworthy." The researcher finds this explicitly in his books, saying, "So-and-so ibn So-and-so, I do not know him and I do not know his father," and he mentions this in his book *Al-Thiqat*, saying, "So-and-so ibn So-and-so is trustworthy," and next to that he says, "I do not know him and I do not know his father." So he established this authentication on a rule he was convinced of, but he was mistaken according to the majority, and he truly was mistaken. So both the lenient and the strict returned to their personal convictions, and they may be mistaken, which is the common case, or they may be correct. The point is that the scholar must exert effort to know the truth. Therefore, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
For him, if he is correct, he has two rewards, and if he makes a mistake, he has one reward.
فله إن أصاب أجران وإن أخطأ فله أجر واحدSomeone else.
The questioner : With this answer, we conclude our lesson for today, and we say to our Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good and prolong your life, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.