What is your opinion regarding what I quoted in *Tammam al-Mannah* from al-Dhahabi concerning a man for whom no authentication or vindication was found, which is his statement:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : You quoted, O Shaykh, in *Tammam al-Mannah* the words of al-Dhahabi regarding a man for whom no authentication or vindication was found. Do you remember this?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Then the words of Ibn Hajar.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Al-Sakhawi said in *Fath al-Mughith* the following, as a refutation of this statement: "But our Shaykh refuted him by saying that what the majority attributed to them, no one from the masters of critique explicitly stated except Ibn Hbban."
The Shaykh : Who is the one, who is the refuter here?
The questioner : Al-Dhahabi.
The Shaykh : What did al-Dhahabi say?
The questioner : He says: "The majority hold that if a shaykh is one from whom a group of people narrated, and nothing was reported that is denounced against him, then his hadith is valid."
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : So he says: "But our Shaykh refuted him by saying that what the majority attributed to them, no one from the masters of critique explicitly stated except Ibn Hbban." Yes, so we want to know your opinion on this.
The Shaykh : My opinion is that this statement is rejected. The first to reject it was its author. Therefore, when I spoke to you about this issue, I mentioned to you that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself, when he biographed some of the narrators in *al-Tahdhib*, said: "It was narrated by so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so," and he did not mention any authentication. He said of them: "Trustworthy," and I am now doubtful that he said of some of them: "Thiqah" (reliable).
The questioner : He said, yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, so his statement is refuted by his action. This happens to me and to others; it is a natural thing. Because I mentioned to you, I think this morning, how I progressed. I do not know, by Allah, the matters became mixed up for me.
The student: Yes, yes
The Shaykh : Here, and... perhaps the brother was not present, Allah knows best. For example, when I first started with this knowledge, I trusted the authentication of Ibn Hbban. Then it became clear to me that the man was broad in scope in authentication and lenient in it. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar alerted me to this in the introduction of *al-Isbah*. So I opened up a bit, but I did not have the courage to judge the authentication or the truthfulness of a narrator who was not authenticated even by Ibn Hbban, until my knowledge expanded somewhat. Then I looked at the practice of the previous historians and authenticators: how they authenticate a man whom they did not live with, did not meet, and did not narrate from anyone who met him who authenticated him, by examining the hadiths and examining the narrators who narrated from him. And you remember the rule in which they disagreed: if a thiqah (reliable narrator) narrates from a narrator, is it considered authentication for him or not? I say you remember this.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so this phrase here has a concept: if a thiqah narrates from a narrator, it is not considered authentication. This is the stronger position. Okay, if two, three, or four thiqahs narrate, then the research that I pursued in that place in the book and mentioned again this morning comes into play. So I am now in this position: if there is a famous narrator who was not authenticated even by the lenient in authentication, but three or more narrated from him, then the soul is reassured to rely on his hadith, even at the lower rank, which is hasan (good).
As for Ibn Hajar refuting al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, he is al-Dhahabi, or he is with al-Dhahabi practically. It appears that this is one of the effects of studying the science of hadith theoretically. So he refuted him theoretically but agreed with him practically. And you, I think, have seen how he says of some of those about whom he was silent... because he is trustworthy. So what did al-Hafiz and before him al-Dhahabi notice when they uniquely authenticated a narrator in their era, when in all these centuries they did not find anyone who authenticated them? No doubt they referred to the principles or rules, or one of those rules that those who authenticate narrators followed, by examining their hadiths and the narrators from them. So that means there is nothing major in what al-Sakhawi quoted from al-'Asqalani.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Then the words of Ibn Hajar.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Al-Sakhawi said in *Fath al-Mughith* the following, as a refutation of this statement: "But our Shaykh refuted him by saying that what the majority attributed to them, no one from the masters of critique explicitly stated except Ibn Hbban."
The Shaykh : Who is the one, who is the refuter here?
The questioner : Al-Dhahabi.
The Shaykh : What did al-Dhahabi say?
The questioner : He says: "The majority hold that if a shaykh is one from whom a group of people narrated, and nothing was reported that is denounced against him, then his hadith is valid."
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : So he says: "But our Shaykh refuted him by saying that what the majority attributed to them, no one from the masters of critique explicitly stated except Ibn Hbban." Yes, so we want to know your opinion on this.
The Shaykh : My opinion is that this statement is rejected. The first to reject it was its author. Therefore, when I spoke to you about this issue, I mentioned to you that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself, when he biographed some of the narrators in *al-Tahdhib*, said: "It was narrated by so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so," and he did not mention any authentication. He said of them: "Trustworthy," and I am now doubtful that he said of some of them: "Thiqah" (reliable).
The questioner : He said, yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, so his statement is refuted by his action. This happens to me and to others; it is a natural thing. Because I mentioned to you, I think this morning, how I progressed. I do not know, by Allah, the matters became mixed up for me.
The student: Yes, yes
The Shaykh : Here, and... perhaps the brother was not present, Allah knows best. For example, when I first started with this knowledge, I trusted the authentication of Ibn Hbban. Then it became clear to me that the man was broad in scope in authentication and lenient in it. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar alerted me to this in the introduction of *al-Isbah*. So I opened up a bit, but I did not have the courage to judge the authentication or the truthfulness of a narrator who was not authenticated even by Ibn Hbban, until my knowledge expanded somewhat. Then I looked at the practice of the previous historians and authenticators: how they authenticate a man whom they did not live with, did not meet, and did not narrate from anyone who met him who authenticated him, by examining the hadiths and examining the narrators who narrated from him. And you remember the rule in which they disagreed: if a thiqah (reliable narrator) narrates from a narrator, is it considered authentication for him or not? I say you remember this.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so this phrase here has a concept: if a thiqah narrates from a narrator, it is not considered authentication. This is the stronger position. Okay, if two, three, or four thiqahs narrate, then the research that I pursued in that place in the book and mentioned again this morning comes into play. So I am now in this position: if there is a famous narrator who was not authenticated even by the lenient in authentication, but three or more narrated from him, then the soul is reassured to rely on his hadith, even at the lower rank, which is hasan (good).
As for Ibn Hajar refuting al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, he is al-Dhahabi, or he is with al-Dhahabi practically. It appears that this is one of the effects of studying the science of hadith theoretically. So he refuted him theoretically but agreed with him practically. And you, I think, have seen how he says of some of those about whom he was silent... because he is trustworthy. So what did al-Hafiz and before him al-Dhahabi notice when they uniquely authenticated a narrator in their era, when in all these centuries they did not find anyone who authenticated them? No doubt they referred to the principles or rules, or one of those rules that those who authenticate narrators followed, by examining their hadiths and the narrators from them. So that means there is nothing major in what al-Sakhawi quoted from al-'Asqalani.