The narrator for whom no authentication or vindication has been reported.

The questioner : All right; I quoted, O Shaykh, in *Tamaam al-Mannah* the words of al-Dhahabi: "The man for whom no authentication or vindication has been reported." Do you remember this?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Then the words of Ibn Hajar, so al-Sakhawi said in *Fath al-Mughith* the following in response to this statement; he says: "But our Shaykh responded to it by saying: 'What he attributed to the majority, no one from the masters of critique has explicitly stated.'"

The Shaykh : Who is being responded to here?

The questioner : Al-Dhahabi.

The Shaykh : What did al-Dhahabi say?

The questioner : He says: "The majority hold that if a Shaykh has narrated from a group, and nothing has come that is denounced against him, then the hadith is valid." So he says: "But our Shaykh responded to it by saying: 'What he attributed to the majority, no one from the masters of critique has explicitly stated except Ibn Habban.'" We must know your opinion on this?

The Shaykh : My opinion is that this statement is rejected, and 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 lenient narrators, said: "So-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so narrated from him, and he did not mention authentication," and he said of him: "Trustworthy." And I doubt now that he said of some of them: "Reliable."

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, so his statement is refuted by his action, and this happens to me and to others; this is a natural matter; because I mentioned to you ... in the morning how I progressed, I do not know, by Allah, the matters became mixed up for me!

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : ... or others? Perhaps the brother was not present, and Allah knows best. I, for example, when I first started with this knowledge, I trusted the authentication of Ibn Habban, then it became clear to me that the man is broad ... in authentication, lenient in it. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar alerted me in the introduction to *al-Lisan*, so I opened up a bit, but I did not dare to judge the authentication or the truthfulness of a narrator whom even Ibn Habban did not authenticate, until my knowledge expanded somewhat. Then I looked at the practice of the previous authors and authenticators; how do they authenticate a man when they did not live in his time and did not meet him, and did not narrate from anyone who met him that he authenticated him? By examining the hadiths, and examining the narrators who narrated from him, and you remember ... in which they differed, that: if a reliable person narrates from a narrator, is it considered authentication for him or not?
The Shaykh: I say: Do you remember this?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : All right; so this phrase has a concept; if a reliable person narrates from the narrator, it is not considered authentication, this is the obligatory, all right, if two, three, or four reliable people narrate? Then comes the research that I pursued in that place in the book, and I mentioned - also - today in the morning, so I am now in this position that if there is a hidden narrator whom even the lenient in authentication did not authenticate, but three or more narrated from him, the soul is reassured to rely on his hadith, even in the lower rank, which is hasan.
The Shaykh: As for Ibn Hajar responding to al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, he is Dhahabi-like or he is with al-Dhahabi practically; so it appears that these reports are a theoretical study of hadith science, so he responded to him theoretically, but he agreed with him practically, and I think you have seen how he says of some of the lenient ones about whom he was silent that he is trustworthy, so what did al-Hafiz and before him al-Dhahabi notice when they uniquely authenticated a narrator in their era, all these centuries they did not find anyone who authenticated them? No doubt they reviewed the sources or the rules or one of those rules by which those who authenticate narrators proceed by examining their hadiths and the narrators from them; therefore, there is nothing in what al-Sakhawi quoted from Ibn 'Asqalani.

The questioner : All right, O Shaykh, we also mentioned in *al-Da'if* regarding the same subject, in a comment on a statement by al-Kawthari about a narrator, so how does he describe himself, and he has only a little hadith, such that it cannot be examined and compared with the hadith of the reliable ones to be judged as precise or otherwise, or that he is in the middle between that, as is one of the ways of the masters of critique in critiquing narrators, who were not found to have any denunciation or vindication from the masters before them.

The Shaykh : This...

The questioner : Yes, I say: What I understand from this when it comes ... is, he, no denunciation or vindication has come, and he has many hadiths, the later scholar collects these narrations, and compares the narrations of this man with the narrations of the reliable ones, and through this comparison it becomes clear to this scholar about this man whether he is reliable, trustworthy, or weak, so this is not affected except by comparing the narrations of this narrator with the narrations of the others from the reliable ones, and then we can judge this narrator, but is it sufficient that a group of reliable people narrate from him and the scholar does not compare these narrations with the narrations of the reliable ones to see whether he is reliable, trustworthy, or weak, is it possible?

The Shaykh: Perhaps.

The questioner : This is the question.

The Shaykh : It is possible, but this is just ... the first one you mentioned; meaning the reference was made earlier: if a reliable person narrates from a narrator, is it authentication? We said: No, but is it the same if three or four narrate from him? We continue to say that this is not authentication for this narrator even if they narrate from him, and it may be said as has been said, this is a branch - for example - narrated from so-and-so, and he is weak; but this is said if a reliable person uniquely narrates from a weak hidden unknown person, but a reliable person narrated from him, the second narrated from him, and the third narrated from him, and nothing - the answer now - and nothing appeared in the narrations of these from him of the denounced narrations; otherwise this group of reliable people would not have narrated from him, unlike if one reliable person narrated from him; so the soul is more reassured by the narration of these than by the narration of one reliable person from that hidden or unknown person, so the examination that you referred to is undoubtedly stronger and more secure for the soul, but if that is not available, that is not a reason for us to discard the hadiths of this man in which we do not find anything of denunciation; with ... for these reliable people that they narrated from him, so this is our view in this issue; therefore, the same hadith scholars who are not meticulous in this subject applied the general rule as you quoted from al-Sakhawi that he responded to al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, so we must observe al-Dhahabi - for example - as al-'Asqalani, when he agreed with al-Dhahabi practically; what is the criterion by which they linked the ruling? We do not find except what we mention.

The questioner : O Shaykh, regarding al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, he mostly does not say ...; mostly ..., and if ... less, what I understand is that Ibn Hajar is not ... this rule, but sometimes he may imitate al-Dhahabi or be influenced by al-Dhahabi in some ... .

The Shaykh : No, no; because he uniquely ... and the authentication of a group, perhaps al-Dhahabi was silent about them, I noticed this in his book *al-Kashif*; meaning what you say about al-Hafiz, I say about al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi himself.

The questioner : Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi.

The Shaykh : 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 of this type of narrators that he is trustworthy or reliable, and sometimes he says: acceptable, and the rule is one, is that not what you say?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I say the same thing about al-Dhahabi; that is, we find many narrators he says of them: trustworthy or reliable, and if you go back to the source *Tahdhib al-Kamal* and *Tahdhib al-Hafiz* which came after it ... application at all, while other narrators they lose that, he does not say trustworthy or reliable, we think that we look at the rule they relied on and leaned on; so we do not find in that a face except what I mentioned, and Allah knows best.

The questioner : All right, O Shaykh, are these matters of ijtihad; that is, do you see these as matters of ijtihad in which there may be disagreement?

The Shaykh : It is possible, why not? If the Hafiz himself differs in his opinion; then what about between one Hafiz and another, or one hadith scholar and another, or one scholar and another, or one student of knowledge and another, this is a very self-evident matter.

The questioner : All right, Shaykh, regarding the application of this rule; is it a rule based on independent legal reasoning?

The Shaykh : I said this, and that is why the application of this rule differs even among a single hadith master; so what about the differences between different people? Is that not the answer?

The questioner : Yes, I mean some of the great scholars of hadith may be considered strict in this matter, very strict, and they lean toward caution in these issues.
-- The Shaykh : ... . --

The questioner : So they say: We do not accept such a thing until we are certain of the narration of this narrator, and then we judge him; but before that, we suspend judgment on him.

The Shaykh : We have no way over them, but they, in turn, have no way over others.

The questioner : Is the rule ... old?

The Shaykh : No, ... I have gone through the stages.

The questioner : Are there old writings of yours in which you did not clarify this rule?

The Shaykh : That is correct.

The questioner : So do the writings need to be reviewed?

The Shaykh : Did you just come?! ... .

The questioner : Do the old writings need to be reviewed?

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, my brother, you are repeating yourself. I am answering you: Yes; the old writings were not based on this rule, but I explained earlier how it began. At first, I was like everyone else.

The questioner : ... the review, the review of authentication and weakening.

The Shaykh : What did you say if you were earlier?

The questioner : Earlier: I progressed in knowledge until I was convinced by the authentication of Ibn Hibban, then the horizons expanded until I reached the final stage I mentioned just now, that if no one authenticated him but he authenticated him, or reliable narrators narrated from him; then the soul is reassured by that such that his hadith is accepted.

The Shaykh : Now I understood regarding ... , but your second question remains ... I know it is not relevant, it has no place in the grammar; because I mentioned "al-Rawd al-Nadhir" and how we refer to it and see in it things ... including that I used to rely on the authentication of Ibn Hibban; does that mean that I had revealed this matter at that time ... ?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : All right, so some of my books exist in which I did not know this rule that I became reassured by, that is what it means.

The questioner : Is this the condition ... ?

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : Many people say: HowThe Shaykh : Al-Albani retracts from weakening in some hadiths in "Da'if al-Jami'" and turns them into "Sahih"? ... .

The Shaykh : Why didn't the question come as to why so-and-so makes a mistake? Why is he lenient?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : As to why so-and-so is strict? And why is so-and-so lenient? My answer was very brief; I said: Because he is a human being; that is: he makes a mistake. Of course, this answer, as they say - also - in our region in the Levant, does not satisfy people; meaning it does not wet the lips, but this authentication, my brother, is establishing a rule like Ibn Hibban - for example - that the default for Muslims is integrity; so I consider this default and proceed with it unless it becomes clear to me otherwise from narrations of anomalous reports from famous narrators, as he phrased it, and so on, ... from this default, to this default that he adopted, it can be applied regarding witnesses who are not required to have ... what they received from hadiths from narrations and so on, this default that he built upon ... is a mistake, so the matter returns to the fact that he was making a mistake, and this is not Ibn Hibban, Al-Albani, Al-Iskandari, or whoever it is; it is the nature of humans, but with all this human nature, is it not more appropriate that Al-Albani should cover up for himself so that people do not talk about him, and say that his words are not reliable; meaning that his opinion changes overnight?
The Shaykh : My brother, this is a reality that every person acknowledges first, and then do we not have a model in the previous Imams? Especially the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad; in a single issue you find many opinions from him himself, what does this mean? He had an opinion, then a second opinion became clear to him, then a third opinion became clear to him, this is knowledge, and knowledge is not that when my mistake becomes clear to me I persist in it and defy everyone, and say: I will stick to it even if it flies away!! This is not what should be done, so your saying that people will say such and such; let them say until they are satisfied, and I am proceeding in this path of truth that our Lord has made clear to me, I hope that Allah will keep me and you firm on the firm word in this worldly life and in the Hereafter.