Some say that saying: "Narrated by Muslim, and it is authentic," or "Narrated by al-Bukhari, and it is authentic," is an expression of doubt regarding the "Two Sahihs."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There are those who say that when you state in "Al-'Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah": "Narrated by Muslim, and it is authentic," or "Narrated by al-Bukhari, and it is authentic," they claim that this casts doubt on the "Two Sahihs"; so what is the response?
The Shaykh : This is a trick we know from Akhzam! We have spoken about this shubhah (doubtful matter) raised by one of the enemies of the Sunnah, who did not content himself with establishing his intense enmity toward the people of the Sunnah and the followers of the Sunnah in practice, but also claimed affiliation with those who preceded him in such enmity by adopting that lineage. He spoke of himself—though he is not of that lineage, but out of honor for his shaykh—saying: "I am So-and-so al-Kawthari," meaning: he takes pride in his shaykh, al-Kawthari, who is known for his intense enmity toward the people of the Sunnah. This man has tried for many years to emerge through the channel of the one who extracted the hadiths of "Takhrij al-Tahawiyyah" in the style the questioner refers to. Even if there is some rearrangement, this rearrangement is actually acceptable to that "little Kawthari." The "little Kawthari" criticized my concise style in "My Extraction of the Explanation of the Hadiths of al-Tahawiyyah." I followed the following style: "Authentic, extracted by al-Bukhari," etc.; "Authentic, narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Nasa'i," etc.; "Good, extracted by Ahmad in the Musnad"; "Weak, narrated by...," etc. So he created a false impression and spread throughout the Islamic world his false and slanderous claim that a hadith narrated in "Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim" does not become authentic according to this extractor, al-Albani, unless he authenticates it from his own perspective. Therefore, he says: "Authentic, narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim," and so on, as I mentioned.
The reality is that I am not the one who originated this style. I have established the proof against him and silenced him with quotes from a manuscript book that is now printed and known to students of knowledge, let alone scholars; I mean the book "Sharh al-Sunnah" by Imam al-Baghawi. This noble man narrates the hadith with its chain to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and sometimes he narrates it through the path of Imam al-Bukhari, and sometimes through the path of Imam Muslim. After narrating the text, he says: "This is an authentic hadith agreed upon by both," or "This is an authentic hadith narrated by al-Bukhari." If he is accusing me of this accusation, does that mean Imam al-Baghawi did not authenticate a hadith narrated by the two Shaykhs unless he authenticated it himself? No, rather this is a style of presenting the hadith from the closest path with a clear phrase: "This is authentic, or good, or weak," etc., and then he narrates the assessment afterward. And we said in our response to this man, which indicates that he is a person of bias and not a sincere advisor: Why did the "little Kawthari" not criticize the "great Kawthari" when he explicitly weakened many hadiths from "Sahih al-Bukhari" and "Sahih Muslim"? I cited some examples in that introduction. Why does he not criticize his shaykh who explicitly weakens them, while he criticizes us for following this style of saying: "Authentic, narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim," etc.?
Finally: We said—and people have different opinions in what they love: We have adopted this style, and we do not mean that a hadith is not authentic unless we authenticate it. Therefore, I say it clearly: Some students of knowledge ask me: Are there hadiths in the "Two Sahihs" that are criticized? I say: Yes. They say to me: Why do you not alert us to them? I say: We have thousands of hadiths that need more clarification than those, and what Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim extracted, as al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi said: "What al-Bukhari and Muslim extracted has crossed the bridge," meaning: it is safe from criticism. We are not the ones who should engage in criticizing these two Imams, and this is in reality a very arrogant task, and what is among us is sufficient for us; meaning, the hadiths that we need to clarify and distinguish the authentic from the weak are what occupy us. As for criticizing al-Bukhari and Muslim, that is not our way and not our methodology. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the one responsible for guiding the Muslims to follow the ways of the Master of the Messengers, upon him be the best of peace and the most complete of submission.
The questioner : ... ... ... .
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : This is a trick we know from Akhzam! We have spoken about this shubhah (doubtful matter) raised by one of the enemies of the Sunnah, who did not content himself with establishing his intense enmity toward the people of the Sunnah and the followers of the Sunnah in practice, but also claimed affiliation with those who preceded him in such enmity by adopting that lineage. He spoke of himself—though he is not of that lineage, but out of honor for his shaykh—saying: "I am So-and-so al-Kawthari," meaning: he takes pride in his shaykh, al-Kawthari, who is known for his intense enmity toward the people of the Sunnah. This man has tried for many years to emerge through the channel of the one who extracted the hadiths of "Takhrij al-Tahawiyyah" in the style the questioner refers to. Even if there is some rearrangement, this rearrangement is actually acceptable to that "little Kawthari." The "little Kawthari" criticized my concise style in "My Extraction of the Explanation of the Hadiths of al-Tahawiyyah." I followed the following style: "Authentic, extracted by al-Bukhari," etc.; "Authentic, narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Nasa'i," etc.; "Good, extracted by Ahmad in the Musnad"; "Weak, narrated by...," etc. So he created a false impression and spread throughout the Islamic world his false and slanderous claim that a hadith narrated in "Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim" does not become authentic according to this extractor, al-Albani, unless he authenticates it from his own perspective. Therefore, he says: "Authentic, narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim," and so on, as I mentioned.
The reality is that I am not the one who originated this style. I have established the proof against him and silenced him with quotes from a manuscript book that is now printed and known to students of knowledge, let alone scholars; I mean the book "Sharh al-Sunnah" by Imam al-Baghawi. This noble man narrates the hadith with its chain to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and sometimes he narrates it through the path of Imam al-Bukhari, and sometimes through the path of Imam Muslim. After narrating the text, he says: "This is an authentic hadith agreed upon by both," or "This is an authentic hadith narrated by al-Bukhari." If he is accusing me of this accusation, does that mean Imam al-Baghawi did not authenticate a hadith narrated by the two Shaykhs unless he authenticated it himself? No, rather this is a style of presenting the hadith from the closest path with a clear phrase: "This is authentic, or good, or weak," etc., and then he narrates the assessment afterward. And we said in our response to this man, which indicates that he is a person of bias and not a sincere advisor: Why did the "little Kawthari" not criticize the "great Kawthari" when he explicitly weakened many hadiths from "Sahih al-Bukhari" and "Sahih Muslim"? I cited some examples in that introduction. Why does he not criticize his shaykh who explicitly weakens them, while he criticizes us for following this style of saying: "Authentic, narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim," etc.?
Finally: We said—and people have different opinions in what they love: We have adopted this style, and we do not mean that a hadith is not authentic unless we authenticate it. Therefore, I say it clearly: Some students of knowledge ask me: Are there hadiths in the "Two Sahihs" that are criticized? I say: Yes. They say to me: Why do you not alert us to them? I say: We have thousands of hadiths that need more clarification than those, and what Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim extracted, as al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi said: "What al-Bukhari and Muslim extracted has crossed the bridge," meaning: it is safe from criticism. We are not the ones who should engage in criticizing these two Imams, and this is in reality a very arrogant task, and what is among us is sufficient for us; meaning, the hadiths that we need to clarify and distinguish the authentic from the weak are what occupy us. As for criticizing al-Bukhari and Muslim, that is not our way and not our methodology. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the one responsible for guiding the Muslims to follow the ways of the Master of the Messengers, upon him be the best of peace and the most complete of submission.
The questioner : ... ... ... .
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.