On the authentication of certain imams and their standing regarding strictness, leniency, and moderation, and whether Ibn Sa'd, for example, in *al-Tabaqat*, is lenient?

The questioner : Here is a question regarding the authentication of certain imams, and I want to know their standing regarding strictness, leniency, and moderation. For example, is Ibn Sa'd in *al-Tabaqat* lenient?

The Shaykh : Regarding some of the imams, he is lenient.

The questioner : Regarding some of the imams?

The Shaykh : He is lenient.

The questioner : I mean, if his statements are compared to the statements of some of the imams.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Okay, if he is the sole source for a biography and it contains only Ibn Sa'd's authentication, what do we rule regarding his authentication?

The Shaykh : We accept it, as long as there is no contradicting evidence.

The questioner : As long as there is no one contradicting him, okay, if it is known that he is lenient, is his authentication accepted?

The Shaykh : The answer is the same.

The questioner : Okay, Ibn Hibban is known to be lenient, and his sole authentication is not accepted.

The Shaykh : Stay in your place, but this is not like that.

The questioner : Meaning, this one's leniency is not like that one's?

The Shaykh : Of course, because Ibn Hazm established his authentication based on a principle on which he differed from the majority of hadith scholars, whereas that one did not establish such a principle to expose himself. However, we see through our investigation that he is lenient. So, if we do not find anyone contradicting him, we accept his authentication until we become aware of his error in authentication.

The questioner : Okay, al-'Ujayli, it is stated that he is lenient in authenticating the unknown narrators?

The Shaykh : That is correct.

The questioner : So, where did he state a principle from which this is known, or is it by induction?

The Shaykh : It is by induction, but al-'Ujayli's leniency, also by this induction, is not like Ibn Hibban's.

The questioner : I am asking about al-Khatib. Al-Khatib in *Tarikh Baghdad* and in his other books, regarding leniency and strictness?

The Shaykh : I know him only as moderate.

The questioner : Okay, and Ibn Khalfun?

The Shaykh : Ibn what?

Another questioner : Ibn Khalfun.

The Shaykh : I know nothing about him.

The questioner : Regarding leniency?

The Shaykh : I know nothing.

The questioner : And al-Qasim ibn Muslimah, or Muslimah ibn al-Qasim—my apologies!—?

The Shaykh : Is he Egyptian or what?
Al-Halabi : He is Andalusian, may Allah know best.

The Shaykh : This Ibn al-Qasim's book is not in our hands; rather, we have what is said about him in *al-Tahdhib*, *al-Lisan*, and the like. So, I have not personally formed an opinion about him either—whether he is among the moderates, the strict, or the lenient. But what I have found and felt with my own hand is that we are in need of his authentications, because often he speaks about men about whom we know nothing.

The questioner : And al-Daraqutni (may Allah have mercy on him)?

The Shaykh : Al-Daraqutni is undoubtedly an imam, and he is not attributed to either strictness or leniency. This is my belief about him.

The questioner : Ibn Asakir?

The Shaykh : Ibn Asakir is rarely quoted for authentication, so I have no specific opinion.

The questioner : Al-Bayhaqi?

The Shaykh : Al-Bayhaqi is like al-Daraqutni.

The questioner : Okay, 'Abd al-Baqi ibn Qani'?

The Shaykh : He has no significant mention in the books of critique and censure, so I have no opinion about him.

The questioner : Abu Nu'aym?

The Shaykh : Abu Nu'aym al-Isbahani?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I have no formed opinion about him.

The questioner : Okay, some students in this era see hadiths in *Sahih al-Bukhari* or *Sahih Muslim* in which they find, or in what they say, for example, a defect. And the previous scholars of hadith did not speak about this hadith. So, when it is said to him that one does not speak about such things in the two *Sahih*s, which the imams received with acceptance, or so and so, he says: We are not like the Children of Israel, who would enforce the hadd on the weak and leave the strong.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : If a nobleman stole among them, they would leave him, and if a weak one stole among them, they would enforce the hadd on him. So, what is your advice for this type of person and for all students?

The Shaykh : This, the answer to this is similar to a previous answer, when you asked about a person who contradicts Ibn Hajar. Do you remember your question?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And what was my answer?

The questioner : I answered that the Hafiz has induction, knowledge, examination, and research, so we are not able to refute him unless we have what he has.

The Shaykh : I do not mean this. The one who contradicts Ibn Hajar's authentication or weakening is not regarding the concealment of Shu'bah, and the ones I mentioned, I asked a question about some students who find that the Hafiz Ibn Hajar authenticates thisThe student : and weakens that, or vice versa, Ibn Hajar weakens a hadith and thisThe student : authenticates it. My answer, which is the answer to your last question, is that thisThe student : if he sees that he has reached a level of knowledge without being arrogant about himself, to the point where he sees that he has the right after reaching this high rank of knowledge of this noble science, then he has the right to contradict him.

The questioner : Contradict what is in the two *Sahih*s, even if he is a scholar, and not just a student of knowledge?

The Shaykh : Listen, this needs explanation. Do you remember this answer? It is the same answer, but your question is: when someone critiques the two *Sahih*s, does he critique them based on the science of censure and vindication? Or based on desire and how?

The questioner : No, based on knowledge of biographies and histories.

The Shaykh : Now we come to an example. A hadith narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim, or one of them, in which a man is found whom the scholars agreed to weaken, or most of the scholars agreed to weaken, and this weakening was for a clear reason; that is, the censure was explained. Based on that, he weakened that hadith. Does this case fall under your question or not?

The questioner : That is it.

The Shaykh : Very good, so I say if he relied not on his own opinion, but on the scholars who criticized the trustworthiness of one of the narrators of this hadith.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Then he has that right, but with the previous condition: if he has reached that rank I mentioned in my previous answer, which I repeated to your ears just now. Is that clear?

The questioner : The question is clear, and I want a follow-up question to it, which is the same question.

The Shaykh : No, I say your question is clear, but I am asking: is my answer clear to you?

The questioner : It is clear to me, but I want to inquire further, so to speak.

The Shaykh : There is no objection, please go ahead.

The questioner : Does this mean that the two *Sahih*s are open to anyone who has reached a high level and strengthened his position in knowledge to speak about hadiths in which the previous scholars of hadith did not speak? And the one who quotes from the books of censure and vindication the weakening of the imams of this narrator—these are the imams who spoke about this narrator but did not speak about a hadith inside the *Sahih*, and the *Sahih* passed before them and they accepted it. So why?

The Shaykh : Your saying "they did not speak," your expression is not precise.

The questioner : It was not transmitted to us, or we did not find it, or we did not come across it.

The Shaykh : Very good, and do you know the difference between the two matters?

The questioner : Between what? If we did not come across it and it was not transmitted?

The Shaykh : No, between "they did not speak"...

The questioner : A big difference.

The Shaykh : A big difference.

The questioner : The fact that I did not come across it...

The Shaykh : No problem, so with this great difference, does the matter differ between your first statement and your second statement?

The questioner : There is a difference, yes, and it differs. The speech differs, but...

The Shaykh : Good, so which of your two statements are you now insisting on, and staying with me until we answer you about it?

The questioner : The statement I am making. I am searching as much as I can in the books of the people of knowledge.

The Shaykh : I do not need the details. Rely on one of the two previous statements so that I can answer you?

The questioner : I mean, he remains silent and does not speak about the two *Sahih*s in which he did not find the statements of the imams.

The Shaykh : That is not it, may Allah reward you. You said earlier "they did not speak," and you said later "I do not know that they spoke."

The questioner : My saying "I do not know."

The Shaykh : This is the answer—may Allah reward you. Okay, if you insist on staying with the word "I do not know," and you know, as every student of knowledge knows, the difference between saying "they did not speak" and "I do not know that they spoke"; in that case, the prohibition is not as great as you imagine if you stayed with your last statement "I do not know." Is that good? Is the statement of the one who says "I do not know" knowledge?

The questioner : Knowledge regarding himself, meaning he informs about himself that he does not know this thing. A negation.

The Shaykh : So it is knowledge?

The questioner : No, it is not knowledge.

The Shaykh : So what is the meaning of this going back and forth without blame on himself or on others? It is not knowledge.

The questioner : It is not knowledge.

The Shaykh : Absolutely. Okay, and his ruling on the hadith as weak based on the statements of the imams of censure and vindication, is that knowledge?

The questioner : Mark.

The Shaykh : Okay, so what is given precedence? Knowledge?

The questioner : I said it is knowledge regarding this narrator, not regarding the hadith.

The Shaykh : And I agree with you, and I said earlier, thisThe student : one who weakened the hadith based on the statements of the imams of censure and vindication regarding one of its narrators, so I agree with you on the matter. Is this knowledge or ignorance?

The questioner : Knowledge. It is knowledge.

The Shaykh : .

The questioner : But it is not sufficient for ruling on the weakness of the hadith, even if the narrator has weakness.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Because it is known that the compilers of the *Sahih*s distinguish the authentic narrator from the weak one, either because of their chains, or because of what they examined, or because they knew that he has a basis, or because they selected from his hadith, or so and so.

The Shaykh : Do I understand from your words that you mean that everything in the two *Sahih*s is authentic, and falsehood does not come to it from before or behind? Or is there something that may not be authentic?

The questioner : The few letters that the scholars specified.

The Shaykh : So there is something?

The questioner : There is something, the few letters that the scholars of hadith specified.

The Shaykh : And when will the role of the scholars end? In which century?

The questioner : I am asking about this.

The Shaykh : Is it authentic?

The questioner : I am asking, it is authentic.

The Shaykh : Are you sure? .

The questioner : I am asking; I am not defending your statement now, but I am asking and I want to know the evidence of each party so that I may know the truth by its evidence.

The Shaykh : No harm, but how do I turn this around?The questioner : And say that you are asking?

The questioner : I am asking you about this; has the role of the scholars ended, as you mentioned, for example?

The Shaykh : Have you ever heard such a question from him? No one has heard this question from you, or are you speaking on the wireless, meaning?

The questioner : All my words are questions; I came with questions, I did not come to discuss issues, I came to ask questions.

The Shaykh : I do not hold it against you, my brother, that you ask and ask a lot, for in that is benefit for me first, and then for the listeners second, but I was surprised by you; I asked you and you turned it around as if you were...The questioner : ...this is what I find strange - - now let us develop the question: in your personal and scholarly conviction, has the role of the scholars ended, finished, until the Day of Resurrection? Or is there still good in the Ummah?

The questioner : There is good until the Hour stands.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. So the role of the scholars has not ended, but your question suggests to me what is, of course, not divine inspiration, but suggests to me that the role of the scholars has been cut off; because you just now, when I asked you: "Are all the hadiths in the 'Sahihayn' (meaning al-Bukhari and Muslim) accepted by you?" you said no, in some matters, but this is by the explanation of the scholars. And so I was compelled to ask you: meaning, has the role of the scholars ended? Finally, I have obtained the answer I wanted from my question, which is that the Muslim Ummah is still in a good state. This issue is exactly similar to: has the role of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in jurisprudential issues ended? You know the answer among those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid): finished, the door of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) was closed in the fourth century of the Hijrah.
Ibn al-Salah (may Allah have mercy on him) fell into the same problem and the same trap that the following jurists (taqlid) fell into when he said: "It is not for us to authenticate or weaken, but it is upon us to follow those who authenticated and weakened." And Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) responded to him with what is the truth and the correct, and that is known - if Allah wills - to you. On this basis, the rope of scientific research should remain continuous until the Day of Judgment, until the day when no one remains on the face of the earth who says "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no deity but Allah). And since the matter is so, it is not permissible for us to restrict the restriction you mentioned; because the scholars - and praise be to Allah - exist in every time, in every century, and by them the proof of Allah is established over His servants. And so, if this...The student : ...person you are referring to is well-versed in knowledge, as I mentioned explicitly, it does not harm him that he does not know who preceded him in weakening a hadith in the "Sahihayn," as long as he critiques with knowledge. And so, his lack of knowledge is ignorance; that is, his lack of knowledge of who critiqued is ignorance, and his critique with knowledge is knowledge, so knowledge is preferred over ignorance. But the important thing is to note that he is well-versed in the science of hadith - you have to be patient with us, my brother - that he is well-versed in the science of hadith first, and then in the science of the Shari'ah second, because I find many of the young people today who critique, whether from the early or later scholars, and they do not understand some matters that are supposed to be understood by students of knowledge. So if this...The student : ...critic is well-versed in this knowledge, it will not harm him that he does not know who preceded him in weakening, as long as he relies on the critique and vindication of narrators (al-jarh wa al-ta'dil), and understands the hadith and its meaning and its implication, and encompasses it with knowledge from the jurisprudential aspect, and then derives the ruling that no one preceded him to, with this condition it is permissible for him, otherwise it is not.
Please proceed.