Is it reliable to accept the authentication of some scholars from the people of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) who are strict in their statement: "The hadith is authentic," and to concede that to them because they are strict?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He says: Is it reliable to accept the authentication of some scholars from the people of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) who are strict in their statement: "The hadith is authentic," and to concede that to them because they are strict, such that it is unlikely that there is doubt in their ruling?
The Shaykh : This is a statement that aligns with the authentication and weakening [of hadiths] that they possess. If a person is strict, then if he authenticates, it means that in most cases it is authentic. This is not a consistent rule, but rather a rule of the majority, and the opposite is exactly the opposite. Accordingly, beginners in seeking this knowledge should proceed in this manner, let alone the general public. As for one who has knowledge of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) and that al-jarh (critique) takes precedence over al-ta'dil (vindication) with an explanation of its cause, and that the cause itself is a known defect among scholars, he does not concern himself with the issue of whether the one who authenticated is strict in authentication or lenient, because his reference in that is to the rules of this science. Unlike the general public, who must follow the one who authenticated, even if he is among the lenient ones, even if he is like al-Tirmidhi, al-Hakim, or Ibn Hibban, for they are more knowledgeable than these people who have no knowledge. Therefore, it is not permissible for the general public to reject the authentication or improvement of al-Tirmidhi based on the general meaning they received from some hadith scholars that al-Tirmidhi is lenient. Well, if he is lenient, are you more knowledgeable than him? You have no knowledge at all. So our Lord says:[An-Nahl 16:43]. If we assume that one of the memorizers known for leniency authenticates or improves a hadith, the general public must follow him, unless his error becomes apparent to them, in which case it is not permissible to follow him.
The questioner : A clarification, O Shaykh:
I mean, is this a justification for many people now to follow some weak hadiths, which may even reach the level of being fabricated, by arguing that so-and-so from the hadith scholars or so-and-so from the people included this hadith in his book? Should not these people be advised to refer to the investigations of the scholars, the contemporary hadith scholars, some of the shaykhs you know who have experience in investigation or the like? Or perhaps the statement you mentioned may be a justification for some people when, for example, they are rebuked for why they do not place a line on the sutrah, and they argue with this hadith, saying: "So-and-so improved it" or "So-and-so"?
The Shaykh : Well, it is so, but one must not follow desire. And I said earlier, concluding my statement: "Unless his error becomes apparent to him." As long as he knows that there are scholars who have improved the hadith of the line, he must follow them because they are more knowledgeable than him. But it is not permissible for him to insist on its error if it becomes apparent to him that its improvement or authentication is an error. The statement is as you understood it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The Shaykh : This is a statement that aligns with the authentication and weakening [of hadiths] that they possess. If a person is strict, then if he authenticates, it means that in most cases it is authentic. This is not a consistent rule, but rather a rule of the majority, and the opposite is exactly the opposite. Accordingly, beginners in seeking this knowledge should proceed in this manner, let alone the general public. As for one who has knowledge of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) and that al-jarh (critique) takes precedence over al-ta'dil (vindication) with an explanation of its cause, and that the cause itself is a known defect among scholars, he does not concern himself with the issue of whether the one who authenticated is strict in authentication or lenient, because his reference in that is to the rules of this science. Unlike the general public, who must follow the one who authenticated, even if he is among the lenient ones, even if he is like al-Tirmidhi, al-Hakim, or Ibn Hibban, for they are more knowledgeable than these people who have no knowledge. Therefore, it is not permissible for the general public to reject the authentication or improvement of al-Tirmidhi based on the general meaning they received from some hadith scholars that al-Tirmidhi is lenient. Well, if he is lenient, are you more knowledgeable than him? You have no knowledge at all. So our Lord says:
So ask the people of the message if you do not know.
فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمونThe questioner : A clarification, O Shaykh:
I mean, is this a justification for many people now to follow some weak hadiths, which may even reach the level of being fabricated, by arguing that so-and-so from the hadith scholars or so-and-so from the people included this hadith in his book? Should not these people be advised to refer to the investigations of the scholars, the contemporary hadith scholars, some of the shaykhs you know who have experience in investigation or the like? Or perhaps the statement you mentioned may be a justification for some people when, for example, they are rebuked for why they do not place a line on the sutrah, and they argue with this hadith, saying: "So-and-so improved it" or "So-and-so"?
The Shaykh : Well, it is so, but one must not follow desire. And I said earlier, concluding my statement: "Unless his error becomes apparent to him." As long as he knows that there are scholars who have improved the hadith of the line, he must follow them because they are more knowledgeable than him. But it is not permissible for him to insist on its error if it becomes apparent to him that its improvement or authentication is an error. The statement is as you understood it.
The Shaykh : Yes.