What do you say about what I understand, which is that when there is a narrator about whom no criticism or vindication has been recorded, and he has many hadiths, the later scholar must collect
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, you also say in the weak ones regarding the same subject, in a comment on a statement by al-Kawthari about a narrator: "So how can his precision be established when he has only a few hadiths, such that it is not possible to probe them and compare them with the hadiths of the trustworthy ones to rule for him on precision or its opposite, or that he is in between, as is one of the ways of the Imams of criticism in critiquing narrators about whom no criticism or vindication was found from the Imams before them" which I understand.
The Shaykh : ...
The questioner : Yes, I say that what I understand from this is that when a narrator comes ... among the narrators, about whom no criticism or vindication has been recorded, and he has many hadiths, the later scholar collects these narrations and compares this man's narration with the narrations of the trustworthy ones. Through this comparison, it becomes clear to this scholar whether this man is trustworthy, truthful, or weak. This does not happen except by comparing this narrator's narrations with the narrations of the others from the trustworthy ones, and then it is possible to rule on this narrator. But is it sufficient that a group of trustworthy narrators narrated from him, and the scholar does not compare these narrations with the narrations of the trustworthy ones to determine whether he is trustworthy, truthful, or weak? Is that possible?
The Shaykh : Perhaps.
The questioner : This question
The Shaykh : It is possible, but this is a degree lower than the first one you mentioned, meaning as indicated earlier. If a trustworthy narrator narrated from him, is that vindication? We said no. But is it the same if three or four narrated from him? Do we still say that this is not vindication for this narrator, even though they narrated from him? If it is possible to say, as has been said, "This is Shu'bah, for example, who narrated from so-and-so, and he is weak," but this is said when a trustworthy narrator uniquely narrated from one concealed, unknown person. But if a trustworthy narrator narrated from him, and the second narrated from him, and the third narrated from him, and no answer appeared here now, and nothing of the denounced narrations appeared in their narrations from him, otherwise this group of trustworthy narrators would not have narrated from him. This is unlike when a single trustworthy narrator narrated from him, for the soul is more reassured by the narrations of these people than by the narration of a single trustworthy narrator from that concealed or criticized person. The probing you referred to is undoubtedly stronger and more reassuring to the soul, but if that is not available, that is not a reason for us to reject the hadiths of this man in which we find nothing of the denounced, given that these trustworthy narrators narrated from him. This is our view in this issue. And therefore, the same hadith scholars who are not meticulous in this subject applied the general rule, as you quoted from al-Sakhawi, who followed up on al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. And we must observe al-Dhahabi, for example, then al-'Asqalani when he agreed with al-Dhahabi. What is the basis that they tied this ruling to? We find nothing except what we mention.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, regarding al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, he mostly does not say "truthful"; he mostly says "acceptable." The biographies in which he said "truthful" are fewer. What I understand is that Ibn Hajar is not convinced by this rule, but sometimes he may follow al-Dhahabi or be influenced by al-Dhahabi in some biographies.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh, here is a biography, read the statement.
The Shaykh : No, because he uniquely affirmed and vouched for a group. Perhaps al-Dhahabi was silent about them. I noticed this in his book *Al-Kashif*. What you say about al-Hafiz, I say about al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi himself.
The questioner : Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar
The Shaykh : Al-Dhahabi. What you say about al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani, I say about al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. That is, sometimes al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani says about this type of narrators that he is truthful or trustworthy, and sometimes he says "acceptable." The rule is one, is it not? You say so. I say the same thing about al-Dhahabi, meaning that we find many narrators about whom he says "truthful" or "trustworthy," and when you return to the original, *Tahdhib al-Kamal* and the *Tahdhib* of the Hafiz who came after him, you find no vindication at all. While other narrators, al-Dhahabi does not say "truthful" or "trustworthy" about them. The important thing is that we look at the rule they relied on and leaned on, and we find no basis for it except what I mentioned. And Allah knows best.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, is this one of the issues of independent legal reasoning? Do you see these as issues of independent legal reasoning in which there may be disagreement?
The Shaykh : ... If the Hafiz himself differs in his opinion, what can be said about the difference between one Hafiz and another, or one hadith scholar and another, or one scholar and another, or one student of knowledge and another? The matter is very obvious.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, is the rule now in the application of this rule a rule of independent legal reasoning?
The Shaykh : I said this, and therefore the application of this rule by one Hafiz differs. What can be said about the difference between individuals? Is that not the answer?
The questioner : No, no, what I am saying now is that some hadith scholars may be considered strict.
The Shaykh : Perhaps
The questioner : They are considered strict in this issue, strict, and they lean toward caution in these matters.
The Shaykh : This is the one who said, "Peace be upon you."
The questioner : In these matters, they say, "We do not accept such a thing until we are sure of this narrator's narration, then we rule on him. Before that, we suspend judgment on him." This is one approach.
The Shaykh : We have no way over them, but they also, in turn, have no way over others.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good
The Shaykh : Welcome.
The questioner : Did you have this rule with you long ago, or
The Shaykh : No, and this was with me ...
The questioner : Recently
The Shaykh : It developed
The questioner : I mean, the question is: are there old works of yours in which you did not apply this rule, so they became weak?
The Shaykh : It is so, it is so, I say it is so.
The questioner : So you need another review.
The Shaykh : You are now coming, you are now coming, meaning you were not
The questioner : I mean the old works also need another review.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, my brother, you are repeating your words. I am answering you: Yes, my old works were not on this rule, but I explained earlier how I started. At first, I was like all people.
The questioner : I understood this, but I mean the review, reviewing the authentication and weakening.
The Shaykh : What did I say if you understood?
The questioner : I understood that you progressed in your knowledge and your conviction regarding vindication, then the vindication of Ibn Hibban, then your horizons expanded until you reached the final stage you mentioned now, that if one did not vouch for him and he vouched for him and trustworthy narrators narrated from him, then the soul is reassured by it such that his hadith is accepted.
The Shaykh : That's it, I understood, I know, so stick to it.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : But your second question remains. Since you know, it is not applicable, it has no place in the grammar, because I mentioned in *Al-Rawd al-Nadhir* how I return to it and look at things in it that I criticize myself for, that I used to rely on the vindication of Ibn Hibban. Does that mean that I was anticipating this thing at that time, which ...
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Okay, so some of my books exist in which I did not know this rule that I finally became reassured by. That is what I mean.
The questioner : Is this the reason ... for you?
The Shaykh : How?
The Shaykh : ...
The questioner : Yes, I say that what I understand from this is that when a narrator comes ... among the narrators, about whom no criticism or vindication has been recorded, and he has many hadiths, the later scholar collects these narrations and compares this man's narration with the narrations of the trustworthy ones. Through this comparison, it becomes clear to this scholar whether this man is trustworthy, truthful, or weak. This does not happen except by comparing this narrator's narrations with the narrations of the others from the trustworthy ones, and then it is possible to rule on this narrator. But is it sufficient that a group of trustworthy narrators narrated from him, and the scholar does not compare these narrations with the narrations of the trustworthy ones to determine whether he is trustworthy, truthful, or weak? Is that possible?
The Shaykh : Perhaps.
The questioner : This question
The Shaykh : It is possible, but this is a degree lower than the first one you mentioned, meaning as indicated earlier. If a trustworthy narrator narrated from him, is that vindication? We said no. But is it the same if three or four narrated from him? Do we still say that this is not vindication for this narrator, even though they narrated from him? If it is possible to say, as has been said, "This is Shu'bah, for example, who narrated from so-and-so, and he is weak," but this is said when a trustworthy narrator uniquely narrated from one concealed, unknown person. But if a trustworthy narrator narrated from him, and the second narrated from him, and the third narrated from him, and no answer appeared here now, and nothing of the denounced narrations appeared in their narrations from him, otherwise this group of trustworthy narrators would not have narrated from him. This is unlike when a single trustworthy narrator narrated from him, for the soul is more reassured by the narrations of these people than by the narration of a single trustworthy narrator from that concealed or criticized person. The probing you referred to is undoubtedly stronger and more reassuring to the soul, but if that is not available, that is not a reason for us to reject the hadiths of this man in which we find nothing of the denounced, given that these trustworthy narrators narrated from him. This is our view in this issue. And therefore, the same hadith scholars who are not meticulous in this subject applied the general rule, as you quoted from al-Sakhawi, who followed up on al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. And we must observe al-Dhahabi, for example, then al-'Asqalani when he agreed with al-Dhahabi. What is the basis that they tied this ruling to? We find nothing except what we mention.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, regarding al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, he mostly does not say "truthful"; he mostly says "acceptable." The biographies in which he said "truthful" are fewer. What I understand is that Ibn Hajar is not convinced by this rule, but sometimes he may follow al-Dhahabi or be influenced by al-Dhahabi in some biographies.
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh, here is a biography, read the statement.
The Shaykh : No, because he uniquely affirmed and vouched for a group. Perhaps al-Dhahabi was silent about them. I noticed this in his book *Al-Kashif*. What you say about al-Hafiz, I say about al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi himself.
The questioner : Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar
The Shaykh : Al-Dhahabi. What you say about al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani, I say about al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. That is, sometimes al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani says about this type of narrators that he is truthful or trustworthy, and sometimes he says "acceptable." The rule is one, is it not? You say so. I say the same thing about al-Dhahabi, meaning that we find many narrators about whom he says "truthful" or "trustworthy," and when you return to the original, *Tahdhib al-Kamal* and the *Tahdhib* of the Hafiz who came after him, you find no vindication at all. While other narrators, al-Dhahabi does not say "truthful" or "trustworthy" about them. The important thing is that we look at the rule they relied on and leaned on, and we find no basis for it except what I mentioned. And Allah knows best.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, is this one of the issues of independent legal reasoning? Do you see these as issues of independent legal reasoning in which there may be disagreement?
The Shaykh : ... If the Hafiz himself differs in his opinion, what can be said about the difference between one Hafiz and another, or one hadith scholar and another, or one scholar and another, or one student of knowledge and another? The matter is very obvious.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, is the rule now in the application of this rule a rule of independent legal reasoning?
The Shaykh : I said this, and therefore the application of this rule by one Hafiz differs. What can be said about the difference between individuals? Is that not the answer?
The questioner : No, no, what I am saying now is that some hadith scholars may be considered strict.
The Shaykh : Perhaps
The questioner : They are considered strict in this issue, strict, and they lean toward caution in these matters.
The Shaykh : This is the one who said, "Peace be upon you."
The questioner : In these matters, they say, "We do not accept such a thing until we are sure of this narrator's narration, then we rule on him. Before that, we suspend judgment on him." This is one approach.
The Shaykh : We have no way over them, but they also, in turn, have no way over others.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good
The Shaykh : Welcome.
The questioner : Did you have this rule with you long ago, or
The Shaykh : No, and this was with me ...
The questioner : Recently
The Shaykh : It developed
The questioner : I mean, the question is: are there old works of yours in which you did not apply this rule, so they became weak?
The Shaykh : It is so, it is so, I say it is so.
The questioner : So you need another review.
The Shaykh : You are now coming, you are now coming, meaning you were not
The questioner : I mean the old works also need another review.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, my brother, you are repeating your words. I am answering you: Yes, my old works were not on this rule, but I explained earlier how I started. At first, I was like all people.
The questioner : I understood this, but I mean the review, reviewing the authentication and weakening.
The Shaykh : What did I say if you understood?
The questioner : I understood that you progressed in your knowledge and your conviction regarding vindication, then the vindication of Ibn Hibban, then your horizons expanded until you reached the final stage you mentioned now, that if one did not vouch for him and he vouched for him and trustworthy narrators narrated from him, then the soul is reassured by it such that his hadith is accepted.
The Shaykh : That's it, I understood, I know, so stick to it.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : But your second question remains. Since you know, it is not applicable, it has no place in the grammar, because I mentioned in *Al-Rawd al-Nadhir* how I return to it and look at things in it that I criticize myself for, that I used to rely on the vindication of Ibn Hibban. Does that mean that I was anticipating this thing at that time, which ...
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Okay, so some of my books exist in which I did not know this rule that I finally became reassured by. That is what I mean.
The questioner : Is this the reason ... for you?
The Shaykh : How?