A question regarding "al-Jami' al-Saghir," which I stated contains typographical errors and some mistakes
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding "al-Jami' al-Saghir," which I said contains typographical errors and some mistakes, is it possible... in the hadith? Can we, for example, rely on the hadiths found in the rulings to argue with some people that it is weak or authentic?
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : ...there are weak hadiths.
The Shaykh : My brother, this is the principle, as we said regarding the symbols, we say the same for every authentication or weakening. No one can be claimed to be infallible. I heard Malik say: "There is no one among us but that he has been refuted and refuted others." And I said previously—and I think you were present when I said it—that one does not attribute the general tendency to the author or the compiler; right or wrong? If the general tendency of this author is authentication, then it is like the general tendency of that author; if the general tendency is authentication in both cases, then it is correct if relied upon, and this does not mean that he is infallible; it is possible that an error occurred, meaning.
Once in one of the gatherings we held in the Kingdom during this period, one of them mentioned to me something that might be the case, but it was not on my mind. He said to me: Sometimes you mention, for example, a hadith in "Sahih al-Jami'," and you say: Authentic. We return to "al-Arwah" which you referred to, and we find that you judged it weak there. Is that understood up to here?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; he said to me: What is the reason? I said: Either an error by the author or an error by the transmitter, meaning the one who is... and in any case, we are all human, we err and we hit the mark, so no one is safe from error. And sometimes the error actually occurs from the transmitter; why? Some of the sheikhs—may Allah guide us and them—say: How can you say: This hadith is weak, and you refer to "al-Sahihah" for its weakening? And conversely, you say: Authentic hadith, and you refer to "al-Da'ifah" for its explanation? This is either ignorance, and I consider it unlikely that a learned, virtuous man would fall into such ignorance, or it is deliberate neglect out of envy, hatred, and resentment, unfortunately. The reason is known to everyone who has engaged in this science. In "al-Sahihah," for example, I speak about the hadith that came at the top with its number; so it has routes, so I mention the routes, then one of these routes comes with an addition to the text placed at the top, so I clarify that the hadith with this addition is weak. This hadith with this addition comes in "Da'if al-Jami'," so I say: Weak. What is the source referred to? The authentic hadiths. How is this? This is the reason. And the reverse is exactly the reverse. I am speaking about tracing a hadith in "al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah," and with a second wording or a second story... but I seek precision and accuracy, and I find in this story or in this long hadith some paragraphs that are authentic in hadiths; so I clarify their authenticity in the book "Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah." So when such a hadith is mentioned in "Sahih al-Jami'," I say: Authentic, refer to "Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah"; because it was appropriate, so I traced this hadith with this wording in "al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah."
The point is: It is possible that the one who found it difficult is that I authenticated and referred to "al-Da'ifah," or authenticated and referred to "al-Arwah," for example. In "al-Arwah," I weakened a hadith that has an addition, but during the tracing I mentioned the hadith briefly as it came in "Sahih al-Jami'," so I referred to "al-Arwah." It is possible that a hasty man found "al-Arwah," found the same hadith with an addition under it: Weak, but he does not have the patience to follow the tracing which is in it; so he does not say... in the one I indicated with its authentic chain. It is possible that the error is from me, so I do not exonerate myself, and I do not exonerate myself.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : ...there are weak hadiths.
The Shaykh : My brother, this is the principle, as we said regarding the symbols, we say the same for every authentication or weakening. No one can be claimed to be infallible. I heard Malik say: "There is no one among us but that he has been refuted and refuted others." And I said previously—and I think you were present when I said it—that one does not attribute the general tendency to the author or the compiler; right or wrong? If the general tendency of this author is authentication, then it is like the general tendency of that author; if the general tendency is authentication in both cases, then it is correct if relied upon, and this does not mean that he is infallible; it is possible that an error occurred, meaning.
Once in one of the gatherings we held in the Kingdom during this period, one of them mentioned to me something that might be the case, but it was not on my mind. He said to me: Sometimes you mention, for example, a hadith in "Sahih al-Jami'," and you say: Authentic. We return to "al-Arwah" which you referred to, and we find that you judged it weak there. Is that understood up to here?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; he said to me: What is the reason? I said: Either an error by the author or an error by the transmitter, meaning the one who is... and in any case, we are all human, we err and we hit the mark, so no one is safe from error. And sometimes the error actually occurs from the transmitter; why? Some of the sheikhs—may Allah guide us and them—say: How can you say: This hadith is weak, and you refer to "al-Sahihah" for its weakening? And conversely, you say: Authentic hadith, and you refer to "al-Da'ifah" for its explanation? This is either ignorance, and I consider it unlikely that a learned, virtuous man would fall into such ignorance, or it is deliberate neglect out of envy, hatred, and resentment, unfortunately. The reason is known to everyone who has engaged in this science. In "al-Sahihah," for example, I speak about the hadith that came at the top with its number; so it has routes, so I mention the routes, then one of these routes comes with an addition to the text placed at the top, so I clarify that the hadith with this addition is weak. This hadith with this addition comes in "Da'if al-Jami'," so I say: Weak. What is the source referred to? The authentic hadiths. How is this? This is the reason. And the reverse is exactly the reverse. I am speaking about tracing a hadith in "al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah," and with a second wording or a second story... but I seek precision and accuracy, and I find in this story or in this long hadith some paragraphs that are authentic in hadiths; so I clarify their authenticity in the book "Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah." So when such a hadith is mentioned in "Sahih al-Jami'," I say: Authentic, refer to "Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah"; because it was appropriate, so I traced this hadith with this wording in "al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah."
The point is: It is possible that the one who found it difficult is that I authenticated and referred to "al-Da'ifah," or authenticated and referred to "al-Arwah," for example. In "al-Arwah," I weakened a hadith that has an addition, but during the tracing I mentioned the hadith briefly as it came in "Sahih al-Jami'," so I referred to "al-Arwah." It is possible that a hasty man found "al-Arwah," found the same hadith with an addition under it: Weak, but he does not have the patience to follow the tracing which is in it; so he does not say... in the one I indicated with its authentic chain. It is possible that the error is from me, so I do not exonerate myself, and I do not exonerate myself.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.