Some people spread the claim that you weaken and authenticate hadiths without standards; sometimes you are strict in authentication, and sometimes you are strict in weakening.

The questioner : Some people spread the claim that you weaken and authenticate hadiths without standards, and the evidence for this is that you—sometimes—are strict in authentication, and sometimes you are strict in weakening, and sometimes you authenticate in *Sahih* and weaken in *Sahih al-Jami'*, saying that you have returned from such and such; so what is your statement?

The Shaykh : We say that if someone is among the people of knowledge, we are ready to discuss with him what he claims. But if he is not among the people of knowledge, his words have no weight; that is from one aspect. From another aspect, I acknowledge and say—as I said earlier—that if it is permissible for me to take pride, I take pride in the fact that when I realize an error, I return from it and do not persist in it as others do. It is very regrettable that a virtue today becomes a defect or an ugliness for some people, or perhaps even a vice. What is the matter with a person if he realizes his error in a book and retracts it, especially in a science like this, the science of hadith, authentication, and weakening, from which millions of Muslim scholars have turned away throughout these long centuries? Why? Because of its difficulty!
And I give you a very simple example, and even if it relates to terminology, the example is clear: Hadith is divided among the scholars of hadith, and I say that *Sahih* is divided into *Sahih li-dhatihi* (authentic in itself) and *Sahih li-ghayrihi* (authentic due to other evidence). Likewise, *Hasan* hadith is divided among the people of knowledge into *Hasan li-dhatihi* (good in itself) and *Hasan li-ghayrihi* (good due to other evidence). And here is the current inquiry: what does this mean, a hadith *Hasan li-dhatihi* and a hadith *Hasan li-ghayrihi*? It means that this hadith does not have a valid chain, but it has a valid chain. What is the definition of this? A hadith *Hasan li-dhatihi*. And a hadith *Hasan li-dhatihi* is one in which all the conditions of a *Sahih* hadith are present, but one of its narrators has less precision and memorization than the level of memorization and precision of a narrator of a *Sahih* hadith. Therefore, they said of his hadith: it is a hadith *Hasan li-dhatihi*. Then the example comes at the end: a hadith *Hasan li-ghayrihi*; what is it? It means the hadith that does not have a valid chain, so it comesThe Shaykh : Al-Albani, who is the one placed in the dock of accusation, comes to a hadith, looks at its chain, and weakens it. Time passes and time passes, and he says that this is a weak hadith. Then, while he is immersed in his entire life in studying manuscripts, let alone printed books, he sees another route for this hadith. The least that this other route benefits that weak hadith is that it raises it from weakness to the rank of *Hasan li-ghayrihi*. So I say in another book: this is a *Hasan* hadith. Why? Why did I say before that it was weak, and then say in another book that it is *Hasan*? Because something became clear to me that I did not know. And although a person, by nature, is as Allah—Mighty and Majestic—described him: , but the most truthful application of such a text is for the one who works in the science of hadith, due to the multitude of routes by the thousands. Therefore, it is obligatory for a person to search within the limits of his ability. And I did, perhaps—and I do not say this in praise, but in clarification of the reality—searched and investigated the routes of hadith in a way that may not exist in the present age. Many people of fairness and knowledge acknowledge this reality. But have I encompassed everything in knowledge? Far from it, far from it! Much has been missed by me and continues to be missed. So this is a simple example. The one who is ignorant of this reality asks: Why did Al-Albani weaken the hadith in such-and-such a book and then authenticate it in such-and-such a book? This is an example of a hadith that I weakened in one book and strengthened in another. And the opposite is also true; it happens: perhaps I authenticate a hadith in a book, and years pass, and then I discover a hidden defect in that chain which I had authenticated. So I correct myself, or perhaps someone else corrects me and I benefit from it. So I declare clearly that this hadith has a weak chain. If there is room for explanation, I do so and explain and elaborate the statement. The place for that is the two famous books, *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah* (The Chain of Authentic Hadiths) and *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah* (The Chain of Weak Hadiths). And if there is no room, I limit myself to stating the rank, as I have done in *Sahih al-Jami'* and *Da'if al-Jami'*.
These matters are hardly noticed by the people of knowledge, let alone the students of knowledge, let alone those below them. Therefore, I advise our brothers, the students of knowledge, all of them, whatever their orientations and partisanship may be—may Allah save us and them—to be cautious in criticism, and to ask themselves, as I received criticism from some brothers in some of the nights we spent awake abroad. For example, he criticized me regarding a hadith about *Tatayyur* (taking an omen as a bad sign), meaning: . He wrote to me, about a page, saying: You made a mistake when you mentioned: . This is not from the hadith, but rather this is an insertion, according to what he transmitted only. I said: By Allah, this is a sin, and none of us is free from making mistakes. When I returned to the hadith that I cited in *Silsilah*, I found that I had indicated the text that he is confronting me with, and he says that this phrase is an insertion. So how did you authenticate it? And I found the text there in *Sahihah* where I indicated the insertion and quoted the words of some of the Imams from whom he quoted that this addition is an insertion. But I adopt the opinion of other scholars that this is not an insertion, because it came in the core of the text. This is an example of the haste of some of our brothers to deny, as if the intention is merely denial, and not scientific research.
In summary: I may authenticate a hadith and then a defect becomes clear to me later. Defects are numerous in this science. For example, there may be a hidden *Mursal* (report missing the Companion link), and hidden *Mursal* is among the defects for which some people of knowledge say that knowing the defects of hadith in terms of *Mursal* is the most precise type of the science of hadith. Who knows this field and its importance and that it may be hidden from the greatest of scholars? Only the one who has practiced the matter himself knows that.
In summary: This question that I heard now is not a new matter. We receive many messages and discussions, and the answer—in brief—is that the one who makes this criticism, I do not think he is among the people of knowledge. And if I assume the best of him, he is one of our enthusiastic Muslim youth, and then he proceeds to criticism without awareness. This is if he is not among the people of enmity and hatred with whom we have been afflicted in some lands. And we ask Allah—Mighty and Majestic—to rectify our souls, and to purify our hearts from resentment, hatred, and envy, and to unite us upon the Book of Allah and the guidance of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).