Regarding the student of knowledge who weakened a hadith, the entire discussion revolved around "the two Sahihs."

The questioner : Regarding the student of knowledge who weakened a hadith, naturally the discussion was entirely about "the two Sahihs." Naturally, he did not weaken a hadith outside of "the two Sahihs." So we say, for example, that perhaps these hadiths did not pass through the hands of many scholars and many commentators. But "the two Sahihs" have a distinct feature. Since they were compiled, scholars have been studying them, either in circles of knowledge, or in commentaries, or by immersing themselves in reading them. So much so that al-Daraqutni (may Allah have mercy on him) took some issue with what is in "the two Sahihs," as is well known. And those who came after him, some of them did not take these issues. And perhaps the word of al-Dhahabi that I mentioned in the hadith before breaking the fast, where he said: "There is something in my soul about it, were it not for the reverence for 'the two Sahihs,'" and that was the hadith of Abu al-Zubayr. And I also clarified, O Shaykh, that there were those who preceded you, such as Abu al-Hasan al-Qattan (may Allah have mercy on him). But this student of knowledge, no one among the early scholars preceded him in criticizing this narration, as happened with Abu al-Zubayr (may Allah have mercy on him). And these two books, these two books, have passed through many hands of scholars, between commentary and so on, and glosses on difficult words and so on. So do we tell him that he is permitted to declare it weak simply because he is a student of knowledge and is competent, even if no one preceded him, while the imams who preceded him studied these books and commented on them, and if it were revealed to us that way—may Allah bless you?

The Shaykh : I have nothing new in answer to your question; it is merely a repetition of the past, but with a new philosophy. And that is, we tell you: now, hypothetically, it is not permissible for this student of knowledge, okay?

The questioner : Good.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible for this student of knowledge; so is there anyone for whom it is permissible?

The questioner : O Shaykh, this issue differs from other issues, such as fiqh issues or others.

The Shaykh : No "dubbing," please. Give a clear answer. A brief question: Is there anyone for whom it is permissible? The answer: Yes, no.

The questioner : There is someone for whom it is permissible, and al-Daraqutni did it.

The Shaykh : Allow me a moment. What is the description of the one for whom it is permissible?

The questioner : That he be a scholar among the scholars who are competent.

The Shaykh : And that is what I rambled about, and you returned to it at the end.

The questioner : No, that is not the issue.

The Shaykh : I said competent , but the difference between you and me is that I did not call the student of knowledge a scholar, whereas you took the liberty with my words and said a competent scholar. You said a competent scholar. So the disagreement between my previous statement and your later one is verbal, as evidenced by the fact that you will now agree with the new statement that I did not direct to the one before you. So I will tell you: it is permissible to criticize the hadiths of "the two Sahihs" by a competent scholar. Now you do not find anything to contradict me with, do you?The questioner : The one who came before you, so I will tell you that it is permissible to critique the hadiths of "al-Bukhari and Muslim" by a scholar who is well-versed in the field. Now, you do not find anything with which to contradict me, do you?

The questioner : That is not an answer.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, I intended—may Allah bless you—that the hadiths of "the two Sahihs" are limited from one to such and such.

The questioner : Now you are speaking differently than before—may Allah bless you—or is it a repetition, meaning running the "kwanah" again? Do you know the "kwanah"?

The Shaykh : Now you are speaking differently from what was said before—may Allah reward you—or is it a repetition, meaning a replay of the "kwanah"? Do you know what the "kwanah" is?

The questioner: No...

The Shaykh. Do you have anything new?

The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, the issue of "the two Sahihs" is not an easy one; because the hadiths of "the two Sahihs" are limited from one to such and such and are confined, and commentaries have passed over them, and caravans of scholars have passed over them. So when a person comes to us.

The Shaykh: - May Allah have mercy on you -.

The questioner : May Allah have mercy on you. So when a person comes to us criticizing something that these caravans did not criticize, in this limited quantity, the soul does not rest much—may Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : Well, the point is, I have nothing new, and you are like me or I am like you, meaning we have nothing new. But I have something new now. I have something new now. When you say these caravans of scholars came and studied "the two Sahihs" and so on and so forth, do you think this.The student : Competent in knowledge in my expression, or that competent scholar in his knowledge in your expression; did he encompass with knowledge this caravan? Answer me; but I stipulate without evasion?

The questioner : He may have encompassed it, and he may not have encompassed it.

The Shaykh : This is the evasion, my brother! "May be" and "may not be" are said to cast doubt.

The questioner : May Allah benefit you. He may have looked at some of these caravans, and he may not have looked at them.

The Shaykh : Did you see what I said? "Some"? And I am asking about the rest; did he look at all of it? Say: No.

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : So what does your saying "he looked at some" benefit you? Its implication is that he did not look at the rest.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So—may Allah reward you with good—you lengthened the answer on me. I asked you a question ; do you imagine that this.The student : In my expression, or that scholar in your expression, encompassed with knowledge everyone who spoke about "the two Sahihs," whether from the hadith perspective or otherwise? The answer: No, obviously the answer is no. So why do you assume the answer is yes? Because when you exaggerate the issue and say that caravans passed over these books and studied them and criticized them and so on, and this person came in the recent time criticizing what the early predecessors did not criticize; why do you claim this? And finally, after the calm scientific discussion, you say no, that is not the case. This is the problem of the young people in knowledge today; they exaggerate matters. So may Allah bless you; if you know that knowledge and that the proof of Allah is established throughout the ages and eras, and that knowledge is never cut off, otherwise the Hour would stand over the people; , , many narrations in this hadith.
The point is, if we stipulate, in your expression, that he be a competent scholar; what is the fear? And we agreed that we cannot say that we encompassed all these scholars who were with those learned, studying caravans of the two books. Second, like Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) whom I mentioned earlier, reminding you of my words, okay, do you think it was permissible for Imam al-Dhahabi to say that word? Answer me without evasion, was it permissible or not?

The questioner : It was permissible, and he said it.

The Shaykh : Did anyone before him from those caravans say it?

The questioner : Abu al-Hasan al-Qattan, as you mentioned.

The Shaykh : You did not answer me. Did he say "I find" in "Sahih Muslim" of Abu al-Zubayr hadiths about which I have something in my heart? Did anyone else say it?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Okay, was it permissible for him to say it?

The questioner : It was permissible.

The Shaykh : Well, so what is the difference between him and his like if he came after him by a few years, or a century, or centuries? There is no difference. The important thing in the matter is that the critic be a scholar, and the matter is ended.

The questioner : May Allah benefit you.

The Shaykh : Are you finished?

The questioner : May Allah bless you, may Allah benefit you.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. You occupied the session with knowledge, praise be to Allah.

Another questioner : In some doubts that arise from what is transmitted regarding the consensus on the hadiths of "the two Sahihs" that were not criticized and no one spoke about them, and the brother's question at the beginning regarding the hadiths that no one among the preservers spoke about, and a latecomer came saying that the consensus has been established on the hadiths that no one spoke about, does this mean a problem that results from this question and others?

The Shaykh : The doubt has already been answered.

The questioner : No, the consensus, meaning some people now transmit and say that the hadiths of "the two Sahihs" that no one spoke about after al-Hafiz al-Daraqutni spoke about the hadiths, the Ummah agreed on the authenticity of the rest. Some people transmit this, and some people are hesitant to speak about some of the hadiths because of this transmitted consensus.

The Shaykh : My brother, the answer to this has preceded, but not directly. Can the hadiths that were spoken about earlier be confined? One of our brothers present, who was before you, mentioned that Imam al-Daraqutni criticized more than three hundred hadiths from "the two Sahihs," and then those who came after him did not leave al-Daraqutni the critic except in individual hadiths; is it not possible that this latecomer.The student : About whom the discussion revolved earlier; is it not possible that he criticized a hadith from those hadiths that Imam al-Daraqutni criticized, but the scholars did not pay attention to his criticism? Is it possible or not?

The questioner : It is possible, but these hadiths, the hadiths that al-Daraqutni criticized, are recorded and well known.

The Shaykh : They are well known, but does every critic and every questioner know them?

The questioner : Not every questioner, but they claim that there is scholarly consensus.

The Shaykh : I want to say: Is the consensus on what is other than what al-Daraqutni criticized? Or does it include what al-Daraqutni criticized and was not accepted? Is the question clear?

The questioner : Yes, it is understood.

The Shaykh : What is the answer?

The questioner : The consensus is on the hadiths other than those he spoke about, whether they were accepted or not.

The Shaykh : Well done. So, there are hadiths now that are practically treated as accepted hadiths, even if they contain something that al-Daraqutni criticized. So, the result of the answer is that we do not have a very clear statement. If we suppose that "Sahih al-Bukhari" is printed in a good edition with sequential numbers, and the consensus you refer to says that the hadiths numbered such and such and such—and they are thousands—were accepted by the Ummah because they were not criticized, and everything else is what al-Daraqutni and others criticized, if there were such a statement and such precise detailing, it could have been taken as a proof. Even so, there is a reservation mentioned earlier, which is when we assumed this scenario: a copy of "Sahih al-Bukhari" printed in a modern edition with sequential numbers, and we assumed that this numbering existed in the era of the claim of consensus, and the numbers of these hadiths on which the scholars agreed were specified. We would then say: Is it not possible that there were people among the scholars—like al-Daraqutni, for example—who criticized other hadiths besides al-Daraqutni's?

The questioner : Yes, you may.

The Shaykh : It is possible. So, the claim of consensus in such a matter is exactly like the claim of consensus in many fiqh issues, where consensus is claimed, and then after investigation and research, it turns out that there are many dissenters, so the claim falls.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes? So the claim of consensus falls. For this reason, we say that the hadiths in "the two Sahihs" are originally accepted by the general Muslim population, while the scholars and specialists have their own specific scientific domain. They may establish a defect in some hadiths that the predecessors did not mention. One who studies "Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani finds criticisms that he will never find in what Imam al-Daraqutni criticized. And Ibn Hajar is the one who transmits this statement that what is other than what al-Daraqutni criticized was accepted by the Ummah.
Now, I will give you an example of some hadiths found in "Sahih Muslim," and perhaps some of it in "Sahih al-Bukhari." In "Sahih Muslim," and this is one of the peculiarities found in "Sahih Muslim," the questioner asks how this is possible? The well-known hadith, which is attributed in the comprehensive books between "the two Sahihs" and others, is attributed to the two Shaykhs; it is said to be agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim. What is it? The famous hadith from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: He mentioned the seven, and mentioned lastly: . You may be very surprised, or at least most of you, or a small number of you, you will be surprised by what I am going to tell you. The hadith, to this day, is narrated in "Sahih Muslim" with the wording: . This is a type of hadith science called what?

Another questioner : The inverted hadith.

The Shaykh : The inverted hadith. This hadith exists in "Sahih Muslim" inverted. On whom was it inverted? On the author? Or on his Shaykh? Or on... and so on? And "Sahih Muslim" came to us like this. Do you think that the occurrence of such an error in a hadith whose meaning indicates its error, let alone that it is narrated correctly in "Sahih al-Bukhari," and the occurrence of such a clear, tangible, embodied error, is more likely than the occurrence of some hidden errors in narration that only the people of knowledge notice? There is no doubt that the occurrence of such an embodied, tangible error in "Sahih Muslim" is much more difficult to explain than the occurrence of some errors that are not hidden from the people of knowledge. So how is it explained?
With a word attributed to Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), which is his saying: "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book." This is a reality, a reality we touch with our hands: "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book." It does not matter to me at all to prove this word to you from Imam al-Shafi'i as I proved to you the authentic Prophetic hadiths from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is sufficient for us to believe that no two people can differ on this meaning of the statement: "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book." As long as the Muslims have agreed that there is in "the two Sahihs" what is rightly criticized, and there is criticism due to error, then the one who said: "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book" has spoken the truth. And this is a miracle among the miracles of the Qur'an, that any book composed by an author, no matter how careful he is in his selection, in his authentication, and in his verification, it is not from Allah. "Allah refused to complete anything other than His Book." Therefore, it is not a place for surprise or objection if some scholars, over the course of time and ages, have criticized some of the hadiths that came in "the two Sahihs" with knowledge, not with ignorance, not with desire, and not influenced by Western or Eastern upbringing or philosophy, as some contemporary writers do today, who have not smelled the scent of knowledge, and do not know the ranks of scholars and narrators in the narrators of hadiths, so they dare to criticize hadiths merely because this hadith did not enter their mind, their self did not accept it, and they reject it and throw it to the ground for the most trivial reasons. This is a departure from the guidance of Islam and all Muslims. But as we say and repeat what we say: a scholar from the past, present, or future, who is proficient in this knowledge, and does not criticize except following the rules of this knowledge and relying on the scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators), I wish that there were dozens, indeed hundreds, of such critical scholars among the Muslim scholars, because by such people the proof of Allah is established over His servants. But by taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence); al-Bukhari said so, al-Bukhari narrated so, this is not knowledge. And I am very sorry that some of the enthusiastic Muslims, and this is a fact that has occurred, some of you may be aware of it, I read more than ten years ago a research by one of the Egyptian writers who have no knowledge. This group of writers in "Al-Arabi Magazine," which is published in Kuwait, a research with a very dangerous title: "Not every hadith in 'Sahih al-Bukhari' is authentic." And he wrote pages under this dangerous title. And I wish you would remember with me that presenting such a research in "Al-Arabi Magazine," which I would not be exaggerating if I said is the non-religious magazine!! If it were a religious magazine, a Shari'ah magazine like some magazines, for example "Al-Wa'i al-Islami" (Islamic Awareness), and this article was published in it, we would say, by Allah, the intention is to educate the religious Muslim Ummah. But this article is published in a magazine that fights Islam in many of its articles, and its title is "Not every hadith in al-Bukhari is authentic." Then the writer speaks a lot, and the writer's ignorance is that he came to the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to have intercourse with me while he was fasting." So this foolish, ignorant writer understood from the word "have intercourse with me" (yubashiruni) that it means to have sexual intercourse. And at that time, he set up a contradiction between the hadith and the consensus of the Ummah and His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): The Ummah agreed that having intercourse with one's wife while fasting means sexual intercourse in Ramadan; this is first, forbidden and not permissible, and second, it invalidates the fast. This commentator, and in the Syrian expression, "the gum-chewer," gum means empty, useless talk, says: How can it be correct that a hadith attributed to the Messenger that he used to have intercourse with Aisha while fasting in Ramadan?
This stems from his ignorance; for "direct contact" can mean intercourse, and in that case, it falls under the category of metaphor and euphemism in expression, as reported from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) when he interpreted His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): He said, "The Qur'an is subtle in its expression, so it used 'touching' as a euphemism for intercourse." This is a wonderful Quranic style. So, he interpreted "direct contact" with the word "intercourse." In that case, if this were the meaning of the hadith, it would be an invalid hadith. And if the scholars had agreed on it, then he brought other hadiths, which is a matter—also—more astonishing than the first, because they are not in "the two Sahihs," and I am the most knowledgeable person about them, because I had extracted some of them in "Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah" (The Chain of Weak Hadiths). This is the hadith that says Abu Talhah al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) was seen in Ramadan eating the hail falling from the sky. They said to him, "How do you eat hail while you are fasting?" He said, "This is not food; it is a blessing from the sky; he eats and cools off." And in the claim of the narration, he said, "This is not food! It is a blessing from the sky!" The hadith came from the perspective of narration in two forms: one of them—and it is the stronger—is that it is mawquf (stopping at a Companion), and the other is that it is marfu' (traced to the Prophet). The marfu' version came that Anas went to the Messenger of Allah saying, "Abu Talhah did such and such, and he said it is not food, but rather a blessing from the sky." He said to him (peace and blessings be upon him), in the claim of the weak narration: meaning: this is jurisprudence, , "Eat hail in Ramadan while you are fasting, and you are not breaking your fast." This ignorant writer came and attributed this hadith to "Sahih," and first of all, it has no relation to "Sahih" in the specific sense, meaning "Sahih al-Bukhari" or "Sahih Muslim," but rather it has no relation to "Sahih" at all, because it is weak and not authentic. Therefore, I had extracted it at the beginning of "Silsilat al-Da'ifah."
The point is that he "struck a random blow in the dark night," as they used to say in the past. Some individuals from some Islamic associations in Kuwait became enthusiastic about this article and published a printed treatise titled "Everything in Sahih al-Bukhari is Authentic." Did this person study anything of the science of hadith? Did he study al-Daraqutni's critique and what was accepted from him and what was not? No, but rather it was emotional enthusiasm and the common belief that what is in "the two Sahihs" is authentic in the minds of the general public. So he went and composed a treatise with a title that is exactly the opposite: "Everything in Sahih al-Bukhari is Authentic." The scholars truly know, first of all, that the marfu' hadiths in "Sahih al-Bukhari" are, in his view, divided into two categories:
- One category is musnad (with a complete chain), and this category is the majority. It is authentic according to the author, and it is from this that what was criticized was criticized, and what was accepted from this criticized portion was accepted by Imam al-Daraqutni.
- The second category is the hadiths known in the science of terminology as mu'allaq hadiths. These mu'allaq hadiths, according to al-Bukhari himself, some of them are not authentic. So how can a Muslim challenge the misguided open sinner with a treatise titled: "Everything in Sahih al-Bukhari is Authentic," when al-Bukhari himself does not believe in this statement? Because in many cases, he suspends a hadith and then refutes it, saying: "The first is more authentic," meaning that what he mentioned as musnad is more authentic than what he mentioned as mu'allaq, because it contradicts the authentic hadith. So, we must speak with knowledge. Here is the lesson: that we do not speak with overflowing, boiling emotion in the path of striving for the safety of "the two Sahihs" from what we call unscientific, random criticism, in the path of not speaking in the critique of "the two Sahihs" with random criticism that closes the door to scientific criticism. No, the matter is a middle ground between these and those. Whoever speaks must speak with the words of the people of knowledge, otherwise let him be silent. And as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .
And now—Professor—allow us to leave so that we may prepare for the prayer—if Allah wills. Had we not been at this time, we would have continued with you as long as Allah wills. And Glory is to You, O Allah, and praise, I bear witness that there is no god but You, I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You.