When Some of the Criticizing Imams Include Certain Hadiths in Their Books

The questioner : ... In this, O Shaykh ... If some of the criticizing imams include certain hadiths in their books, and we find that someone other than that critic or imam says about it that it is a liar; do we not find a dispensation and an excuse for the one who included it, that he does not consider this person a liar?

The Shaykh : Because the hadith came through a sound path?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Then?

The questioner : This chain of narration—for example—in our current time, and this ... did not encounter it with a weak chain, but this was mentioned either in one of the Musnads or in one of the books of the Sunnah; so he included this hadith with a chain in which there is a liar = -- And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah --

The questioner : = So does this chain of narration, which contains a liar, since he included it, and he is one of the criticizing imams, and it contains this one who was accused of lying; does it not indicate that the one who included it does not consider him a liar?

The Shaykh : Perhaps, perhaps.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... Because I reject the chatter of others!! Do you see? So I want to clarify.

The questioner: Go ahead.

The Shaykh : Yes and yes, if the one who included that hadith in that chain of narration, in which some of those concerned with this science say there is a liar; if the author of the book stipulated that he would not narrate a hadith containing a liar; then at that point your statement is in its proper place; meaning: the author does not consider this person a liar. But if he did not stipulate that, then at that point it is possible to say: the statement of the one who said about him: "Liar" does not contradict the author's inclusion of this hadith; because he did not stipulate it. This is first. And second, it is possible that he did stipulate it, but as the previous hadith said—the statement ofThe Shaykh : Sa'd - it is possible that he was the one who could not apply the rule literally in every single hadith. So now I say I have finished the answer, and you know what my statement means: Yes and yes.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay; now.

The questioner : There remains something else with us.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Is it not said about a hadith that contains a liar, if no other path is found for it, that this hadith is a lie?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Is it thought of this trustworthy imam that he would narrate a fabricated hadith against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) along with a hadith from the one who narrated to him with a hadith ...?

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, my previous statement went down the drain.

The questioner : You know this, and he said it was controlled, or it might be a departure from his rule?

The Shaykh : Or he might not have stipulated it.

The questioner : He did not stipulate this, even if he did not stipulate ... , even if he did not stipulate soundness, even if he did not stipulate the thing that serves as proof, regardless of whether it is sound or good, but even if he did not stipulate this; is it thought of him that he would narrate except that he is departing from the rule?

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you.

The questioner : And you ... .

The Shaykh : How did we know the fabricated hadiths, by intellect or by chain of narration?

The questioner : By the chain of narration through the path ... .

The Shaykh : No, by the chain of narration; who narrated these chains of narration to us?

The questioner : They...

The Shaykh : They did, so how is it permissible that they narrate to us with their chains of narration in which there are fabricators and liars?

The questioner : From this I say: Is it not thought of them that the one who included it does not consider this person a liar ...?

The Shaykh : It is not necessary, and the answer has already been given—may Allah bless you—, otherwise it would become a cycle with us, and we would go in a circle, do you know that my answer might be that he did not stipulate it, so he is excused in what he mentions. Perhaps you remember with me that the scholars of hadith mentioned in their terminology that if a hadith scholar narrates the chain of narration with its chain, the responsibility is lifted from him; because he placed the means by which the scholar can know if this hadith is fabricated or this one is fabricated; do you not remember this with me?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So then.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Done, so the question from the beginning is then not applicable.

The questioner : Okay; we have something else—may Allah honor you—.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Regarding the statement, as long as the statement is about the chain of narration, there is a hadith included by Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Hakim through the path of Muhammad ibn Rabi'ah from Abu al-Hasan al-Asqalani from Abu Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Rukanah from his father Rukanah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was thrown down, so he threw him down, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .
The questioner: This contains three unknowns in it, in it is Abu al-Hasan al-Asqalani, and Abu Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Rukanah, and his father Muhammad; all these are unknowns. And Imam al-Bukhari said about this hadith: Its chain of narration is unknown. And al-Dhahabi said in the biography of Muhammad: "The report did not become sound ...". And al-Bayhaqi also included this hadith through the path of Sa'id ibn al-Zubayr as a mursal, so its chain of narration to Sa'id is sound; does this mawquf, which contains three unknowns, strengthen this mursal, even though the imams like al-Bukhari and others said: The report did not become sound?

The Shaykh : In ... your presentation now, it is possible that it can be strengthened; meaning: summarize what you understood from you: the connected one contains three unknowns, and the mursal has a sound chain of narration to its mursal.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay; in this presentation you mentioned, it can be said that it is a good hadith, and this returns to the rule we mentioned earlier; so whoever considers that a certain chain of narration contains an unknown, it is said about this chain of narration that it is weak, and another chain of narration contains a second unknown, he says: Its chain of narration is very weak, and a third chain of narration like the one you are saying: contains three unknowns; it is said: This is a fabricated chain of narration.
The Shaykh: I am giving an example; so whoever his logic is this answer that that mursal to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, and its chain of narration to him is sound, does not strengthen; why? Because the one for whom it is stipulated, which is the connected one, its subject is fabricated; why? Because it is from an unknown from an unknown from an unknown; this equals fabricated, and if it is from an unknown from an unknown, this equals very weak, and the very weak cannot be strengthened by anything else, even if it is suitable for testimony like the mursal with a sound chain of narration to it. As for whoever does not consider this detail, I do not think any of the scholars says with this detail; then at that point my previous statement returns; this chain of narration is weak and can be strengthened by that mursal; because an unknown from an unknown from an unknown does not equal fabricated, and an unknown from an unknown does not equal very weak; so it is not suitable for testimony, and the reason for that is that it is not conceivable at all—and this witness is before you—that the accusation is in each of them; why now is the unknown hadith not used as proof? Due to the possibility that it is accused; this is its worst state, and its best state is that it is not a memorizer in what it narrates, but it is weak, but if one of the two possibilities becomes preponderant—meaning: fabrication for example—the testimony with it falls away, so an unknown from an unknown from an unknown does not settle or remain in the mind that each one of these can be accused, it does not remain in the mind; rather the cause is in one, but it came like this: unknown from an unknown from an unknown.
The Shaykh: The summary of the statement—may Allah bless you all—: I want to mention something in addition to what preceded; that some of the hadith rules are not rules like some of the arithmetic operations that are certain, and there is no disagreement about them; , , or 2 times 2 multiplied to the end, some of the hadith rules, due to the precision of this science, the matters are relative, and what is your knowledge that the same narrator, some say: "Trustworthy", and some say: "Weak", and some say: "Liar", so this issue is very clearly relative; and therefore it is not befitting that we rush and think that there are rules ... rigid that do not accept movement, do not accept disagreement of opinions in them, no, there are rules like this subject that are sensitive and very precise; so opinions may differ in affirming the rule, and then—and this is the most important—opinions may differ in applying this rule in its particulars, so a particular from the particulars may come that falls under the rule and deviates from the rule, either due to negligence of the one who formulated the rule, or as an exception for this individual hadith from the rule.
I was truly delighted when I came across the treatise of al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi in the manuscripts of the Zahiriyyah, which was later published under the title "Al-Muwakkizah." There, he mentioned a statement that I had felt in my heart, and my conviction in it grew when I saw this Hafiz write it down in his treatise. He said: "The hasan (good) hadith is among the most precise of the sciences of hadith." This is because the opinion of a single hadith scholar varies on this; sometimes he grades it as hasan and sometimes he weakens it. So what can we say about two hadith scholars who disagree? The reason is very clear: regarding this hadith that was graded hasan, the one who graded it hasan examined its narrator and found much disagreement. Sometimes the conclusion drawn from this disagreement is that he is truthful and has a good memory, and sometimes the conclusion is that he is truthful but makes mistakes or has a poor memory. In that case, his hadith is not hasan unless supported by another narration. Thus, a single person may advance or retreat in his judgment of a single narrator, and consequently, opinions differ regarding this hadith of this single narrator; sometimes he grades it hasan and sometimes he weakens it. This is the height of precision. When does he grade it hasan? When he recalls that the disagreement leads to the conclusion that he is truthful. However, something may appear to him in a specific hadith with the same chain of narration that merits the grade of hasan, where there is something in that particular text that prevents him from applying his general rule to that specific text, even though it is from the same narrator who is accustomed to having his hadiths graded hasan. These matters are not usually explained by the critic or Hafiz; he is content to say: "This is a weak hadith," even though the rule requires him to say: "This is a hasan hadith." But something occurred to him that he did not clarify, or was unable to clarify, and this is more precise in the matter.
Recently, during a gathering, a question was raised—The Shaykh : of course, Sa'd—about the sending of blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the first tashahhud. I mentioned a corroborating narration, which may have been what he was referring to,The questioner : stating that in the marginal notes of "Al-Mughni" by Ibn Qudamah, they mentioned something that strengthens the hadith of Abu 'Ubaydah from Ibn Mas'ud that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he sat in the first tashahhud, was as if he were sitting on a hot coal.
I think the dish has burned [everyone laughs]... I am not saying that, meaning, people usually say that the academic atmosphere remains dry, and indeed it requires endurance, and it requires... the mind, and so on... Yes, that is right.
The point is: I said that the hadith: "As if he were sitting on a hot coal" is excused regarding its defect, and I am certain of one of them; which is the break between Abu 'Ubaydah and Ibn Mas'ud. Then I wrote: Is it from the narration of Ibn Ishaq or not? But I mentioned a corroborating narration for this hadith from the narration of Ibn Ishaq, saying: "He narrated to me—I think it was 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad—... I mentioned... or there is an anomaly in it; because this addition he mentioned in the hadith... in the first tashahhud, so I finished the greeting and moved to the third rak'ah. The point is that this chain of narration is hasan, and there is no disagreement on it. Whoever has comprehensively covered the topic of Ibn Mas'ud's hadith and gathered its various routes will immediately feel that there is an anomaly or rigidity, and will not say: "This is a hasan chain of narration." As for the one whose mind is free from comprehensively covering the routes and wordings of the hadith, he will say: "This is a chain of narration..." And each has a perspective. But what is the truth? The truth is... a person who has examined the work of that hadith scholar who gathered the routes and judged the chain of narration as hasan based on the rule, but it is anomalous or denounced. As for the one who has not examined this, he follows the one who graded the chain of narration as hasan. I am among those who grade the chain of narration as hasan when I mention an anomaly or denunciation. The issue in such cases is not this clear and apparent. It is said: "You authenticated a rule that says such and such." Yes, I authenticated the rule that Ibn Ishaq's hadith is hasan if he explicitly mentions the narration. So why did you contradict it? It requires a lecture. The one being lectured to may be convinced or may not be convinced. So matters are relative, and the conclusion of the matter is: .