When is it permissible for a student of knowledge to engage in the authentication and weakening of Prophetic hadiths?

The questioner : When is it permissible for a student of knowledge to engage in the authentication and weakening of Prophetic hadiths? What are the books he should read and the subjects he should become familiar with to reach this level? Are there specific conditions that must be present in him, as the predecessors established conditions for independent legal reasoning in Islamic jurisprudence?

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that if a student of knowledge wishes to one day reach the knowledge of authenticating and weakening hadiths—and I do not say that he will one day reach the knowledge of tracing hadiths to their sources, because tracing hadiths is something any student can do well, no matter how shallow his culture may be, whereas authenticating and weakening is something only one who has spent a long time practicing the application of what he studied theoretically of the science of the critique and vindication of narrators, the principles of hadith, and the rules of hadith terminology can master. So, if a person has spent a long period of his life studying this science until he has mastered it well theoretically, and then tries to apply it practically, this truly requires many, many years. This varies, without doubt, depending on the student of knowledge in terms of his dedication to this science and his specialization in it, and his ability to turn away from what distracts him from this science. Without doubt, one of the most famous books in terminology is "Al-Mizan fi Naqd al-Rijal," known as "Mizan al-I'tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal" by the Imam al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. This is among the best books for knowing the levels of narrators in terms of authenticity, goodness, and weakness, and it is easy for beginners in this science to study it among themselves, because it is a summary of many old books that the hands of hadith scholars in the present era did not reach, because they remained in the world of manuscripts. Now, as some of you know, at least some of the basic references for al-Dhahabi's book "Al-Mizan" have been printed, such as "Al-Du'afa wa al-Matrukin" by Ibn Hibban, "Al-Du'afa al-Kabir" by al-'Uqayli, and "Al-Kamil" by Ibn 'Adi. Before that, "Tarikh Baghdad" by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi was printed. These books are the sources of al-Dhahabi's book "Al-Mizan." Then there is "Lisan al-Mizan" by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani. If a student of knowledge practices studying these books to know the narrators of hadiths, whether these narrators are from the men of the Six Books or from the men of other than the Six Books, he will find them scattered in this book, "Mizan al-I'tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal" by al-Dhahabi. He will find there a method by which he understands how hadith scholars judged that so-and-so is a denouncer of narrations, or that he has denunced narrations, or that he is a good narrator, or that he is an authentic narrator, a trustworthy one whose testimony is accepted. This practical style in critiquing narrators is found clearly there. And, of course, it is not sufficient that merely by reading this book he knows the science of the critique and vindication of narrators. No, he must read many, many books. For example, "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib" by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani. This is a book specifically about the narrators of the Six Books and similar works like "Al-Adab al-Mufrad" by al-Bukhari, "Al-Tarikh" by al-Bukhari, and "Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad" by al-Bukhari. The narrators of these books, in addition to the Six Books, their biographies are found in "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib," but he will not find biographies of those who did not narrate in these books except in a book like "Al-Mizan" by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. And so the student of knowledge proceeds in studying these books until he develops an instinct and knowledge to distinguish what the hadith scholars or scholars of the critique and vindication of narrators may have differed on regarding the vindication or denunciation of narrators. He will then be able to apply the hadith principle he reads in the science of terminology.
An example of this is their saying: "The denunciation of a narrator takes precedence over the vindication of a narrator." This is a famous phrase in this science and is on the tongues of the people of knowledge: "The denunciation of a narrator takes precedence over the vindication of a narrator." But he will find that this rule is not absolute in its generality and comprehensiveness, but it is restricted by a condition, which is: "The denunciation of a narrator takes precedence over the vindication of a narrator" if the reason for the denunciation is specified and clarified. For example, if Ibn Ma'in—and he is one of the imams of the critique and vindication of narrators and a contemporary of Imam Ahmad—says of a narrator: "Trustworthy," and Imam Ahmad says: "Weak," or vice versa, it is not important to specify which one, the point is to give an example. Which of the two statements is preferred over the other? I say, the one who vindicated—whether it was Ahmad or Ibn Ma'in—or the opposite? If we want to apply the mentioned rule, "The denunciation of a narrator takes precedence over the vindication of a narrator," we would then prefer the statement of the one who weakened over the statement of the one who vindicated. But this is not absolute. What is the restriction? They said: if the reason is clarified. One said: "Trustworthy," and the other said: "Weak," but he did not say, for example: "Weak, poor in memory," or "Weak, he became confused," or something like that. So this is a weakness that can be called a denunciation without a specified reason, and it does not take precedence over the statement of the one who vindicated. But look now at how the progression works, and this is something a student of knowledge cannot reach in a few years of theoretical study, but in long, many years, and then comes the application of this study after that, because the application will reveal to him what may have been hidden from him in the theoretical study.
We said: They said: The denunciation of a narrator takes precedence over the vindication of a narrator. This is first. Second, they said: This is not absolute, but the denunciation must be specified. If it is not specified, then the trustworthiness or vindication takes precedence. They said—third: It is not sufficient for the denunciation to be specified. A person may be satisfied to stop at the second point. First, they said the denunciation of a narrator takes precedence over the vindication of a narrator. Second, they said: This is not absolute, but only if the reason for the denunciation is specified. This is also not sufficient, but the reason for the denunciation must be a denunciation in itself, that it be a denunciation in itself. And someone may say: You will not find this elaborated in the books of terminology as you hear it now clarified and explained, but this is reached through practice by the one who studies this science and applies it.
For example, it was said to so-and-so, one of the hadith scholars: Why do you not narrate from so-and-so? He said: This one is a Murji'i. Is this a specified reason for denunciation? But is it a denunciation? They said: No, theological disagreement is not a denunciation, because the criterion in narration is two things: First, integrity; that is, that he be a Muslim who is not an open sinner. And second, that he be a preserver, meticulous in his narration. As for the fact that so-and-so is a Murji'i, so-and-so is a Khariji, so-and-so is a Shi'i, and so on, these are set aside. As long as the narrator remains within the circle of Muslims, and as long as it is verified that he is trustworthy, controlled, and a preserver, his hadith is authentic, and the mentioned denunciation is not a denunciation, even though it is a denunciation, but it is not a denunciation in itself.
It was said to another: Why do you not narrate from so-and-so? He said: I heard the sound of an oud in his house. Is the sound of the oud amusement, and engaging in amusement open sinfulness? So, is this man not just? Is that so? The answer is: No, why? First: because amusements and musical instruments are indeed forbidden in Islam due to many hadiths. But we today can say this statement because, by the grace of Allah, due to the lateness of our time, we have looked into the statements of those who differed on this issue and their evidence. So, it became stronger for us that all musical instruments are forbidden and not permissible. But the matter was not this easy in that time, where there were those who held that there was nothing wrong with musical instruments based on their independent legal reasoning. So, what was disputed in that time, it is not permissible to drop the argument based on it, because he contradicted the independent legal reasoning of the others, even if he was wrong in his contradiction. This is a criticism, but it is not counted as a valid criticism against the criticized person.
And more precise than that is the statement of this person: "I heard an oud from his house." Even if he himself considered the oud forbidden, it does not stand as a valid reason for criticism. Why? Because this sound could have come from his neighbor's house, not from this narrator's house, because houses are close together, especially in that time, when houses were not built tall as they are in this time. And it is possible, finally, that this sound came from his house, but not from him, rather from a relative of his, or from a son of his who was disobedient to him, who did not obey him and did not listen to his words, so he is not responsible for it. So, with such types of criticism, it is not suitable to be an acceptable reason for criticism. If a student of knowledge continues with this study, and applies the science of criticism and vindication to the principles, and practices it practically for at least about ten years, and writes for himself and does not publish it to benefit others, and this is what I have observed in this time as a plague upon students of knowledge: they rush to appear as scholars, and in a science that the majority of scholars have turned away from throughout these many centuries, where there was no one among them who would stand out in the science of hadith, the science of criticism and vindication, the science of authenticating and weakening, except for very, very few individuals. Why? Because of the difficulty of this science and its precision. And among its difficulties is that you judge a hadith as weak, and then after many long years you find another chain of narration for this hadith. Where? In a book you had not come across, and the books of the Sunnah are in the hundreds, and most of them are still among the manuscripts. Therefore, it was among what came in the books of the science of hadith in the terminology, and I find that this rule is not observed. Why? Did the student of knowledge not read it? He read it, but as they say in our region in Syria: "What went out from here, came out from here." It did not settle in his conscience, in his heart, so that he would be constantly aware of it, always. What is it?
Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi said: If a student of knowledge comes across a hadith whose chain of narration is weak, he may say about this hadith: "Its chain of narration is weak," and he should not say: "The hadith is weak." Because there is a difference between saying "Its chain of narration is weak" and saying "The hadith is weak." Because the former applies weakness to the chain, and you are correct. But if you say, because of the weakness of the chain, "The hadith is weak," your error may become clear. Why? Because you did not come across a second chain, and this second chain may at least strengthen the first, or it may be strong in itself. So how did you weaken the hadith? But if you say "Its chain of narration is weak," you are truthful, and you are not blamed. But if you say "This hadith is weak," you may be blamed, because you may find yourself, or another may come and correct you, and say to you: "This hadith is established."
And I say to you, with complete frankness: With the grace of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, upon me, where I spent more than half a century of this era in this science, even so, a beginner student of knowledge may come and correct me. How does he correct me? Because a book has now appeared that I had not reached, even though I lived among the manuscripts of the al-Zahiriyyah Library, which contains very great treasures. This is witnessed by everyone who has looked into my tracing of hadiths to their sources. But does that mean I encompassed the manuscripts of the world? That is impossible. Now, some manuscripts are being printed from, for example, the Egyptian National Library, they are being printed now. So a beginner in this science comes and says: You weakened such-and-such a hadith! And this chain either strengthens that chain, or it is strong in itself, and so on. Who does this happen to? To the one who spent half a century and more in this science. So what is the case of the beginners in it? Without doubt, they must be patient, and not rush the matter, and if it is required of them that they have been given a share of memory and retention, and a desire for this science, that they do not rush. And there is no harm in them writing for themselves. But merely feeling that he was able to refer to the book "Al-Mizan," "Lisan al-Mizan," "Al-Tahdhib," and the like, and say that so-and-so is in it, and so-and-so weakened him, I see that the errors now are fully embodied. Because there are some types of sciences that have precision, as I mentioned to you earlier regarding criticism and vindication. And among this precision is the hasan hadith. The hasan hadith, the Imam, the critic, the Imam al-Dhahabi, says in his treatise "Al-Muqaddimah": "It is one of the most precise types of the sciences of hadith." The hasan hadith is one of the most precise types of the sciences of hadith. Why?
Because the meaning of this hadith or that one being hasan is that there is a man in it who is disputed between those who authenticate him and those who weaken him. So, the one who wants to grade his hadith as hasan must summarize a very short phrase from that long difference scattered in the biography of that narrator. So, this one says about him: "Trustworthy," and this one says: "No harm in him," and this one says: "Weak," and this one says: "He narrates anomalies," and it may be said: "He is one who denies hadiths," and many, and very many, of the students of knowledge do not know the difference between "He has anomalies" and "One who denies hadiths," and the like of these very important differences. So how can he summarize from this severe disagreement a word, which is: "This is a weak hadith," or "A hasan hadith," or "An authentic hadith"? From here comes the precision. And therefore we find many students, if they find a scholar in the past or in hadith who grades a hadith as hasan, they say: "In it is so-and-so, and so-and-so said about him: He is weak, or has poor memory," or the like. So he relies on the statements of those who weaken him and does not look at the statements of those who authenticate him, and then he does not extract a summary from these different statements, but rather he leans to one side. And what carried him to that—Allah knows his intention—is ignorance, it is desire, it is error. Allah knows it!
And among the precision, I said this difficulty is clear now: that the statements of the scholars of criticism and vindication are different, so he must take a summary. I advise the beginner in this science to rely in this summary on the book "Al-Taqrib" by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, on the book "Al-Mughni fi al-Du'afa wa al-Matrukin" by al-Dhahabi, even though this is not as clear as the book "Al-Taqrib," on the book "Al-Kashif" by al-Dhahabi, also, because it is a summary, even if a partial summary. The best book in summarization that I found is "Taqrib al-Tahdhib" by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar. This helps the beginner, if he was given intelligence or acumen, to understand how he said: "So-and-so is truthful," even though if he returns to the original "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib," he finds in it severe criticism. He can, with the help of Ibn Hajar's judgment and returning to the original, form an opinion over time. I say: This is what benefits from the statement of al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. But the extreme precision is that the individual scholar is seen to be contradictory in himself; sometimes he authenticates and sometimes he weakens, sometimes he authenticates and sometimes he weakens.
Now the subject has shifted from one person to another, and it has narrowed down to a single individual. This one person reads the biographical assessment once and concludes that the narrator is reliable. But time passes, and more time passes, until something becomes clear to him that was previously hidden from him; so he rules that this man is weak and weakens his hadith. The one who has no knowledge of these subtleties and these realities says, "This is a contradiction." Yes, it is a contradiction. Let us now return to the statements of the jurists regarding a single issue, and especially Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). You will find that he gives different rulings on the same issue. Why?
Because independent legal reasoning changes, and observations differ according to a person's advancement in knowledge, age, and experience. Perhaps you remember a report narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab that he was asked about a case concerning a share in inheritance, so he answered with an opinion. After about a year, he was asked the same question, so he gave a different answer. He was told, "Previously you answered differently." He replied, "That was based on what we used to issue as rulings, and this is based on what we issue as rulings now." This indicates that a scholar's independent legal reasoning may change. This is in jurisprudence; so what about the narrators of hadith, regarding whom the opinions of the masters of the critique and vindication of narrators differ? The same student's opinion differs at one time from another. So the one who has no knowledge and does not know the reason for that finds it strange. Therefore, there is no strangeness in the disagreement of hadith scholars regarding a single narrator. We return to the principles: al-Bukhari says such and such, and Ahmad says such and such, because that goes back to independent legal reasoning and to the study of the hadiths of this narrator who is authenticated or weakened. So each speaks according to what Allah has opened up for him and facilitated for him of knowledge.
In summary: the student of knowledge must be patient in seeking this knowledge, because it is, in reality, one of the most subtle of the sciences of the Shari'ah. And so it was among the virtues of this community that it was distinguished by the science of hadith and the chain of narration over all other nations. As some non-Muslim scholars, who are called Orientalists, have testified, they have testified that this community was distinguished by this characteristic, namely the knowledge of the old narrations through the chain of narration. So it is no wonder that it is established from Imam 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, one of the teachers of Imam Ahmad, that he said, "The chain of narration is part of the religion." The chain of narration is part of the religion, because if it were not for the chain of narration, the religion of Islam would have suffered what the religion of the Jews and the Christians suffered. They are now unable to establish absolutely anything related to the guidance of Moses or Jesus. The Torah and the Gospel, which were revealed from the sky to the hearts of Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them), have been changed and altered. So what about the sayings of these two noble prophets? They have gone to the winds. The Jews and the Christians cannot know what is authentic from their prophets from before. Unlike the Muslims, and praise be to Allah; because of this chain of narration, and by the grace of what Allah has facilitated for the scholars of hadith in tracing the biographies of the narrators of these chains, we can say today: The Messenger of Allah said, The Messenger of Allah used to do, he did such and such, he saw such and such, he did such and such, he campaigned such and such, and so on. That is from the grace of Allah upon us and upon the people, .
Please, who is it? Please.