If the early scholars did not rule a narration as anomalous or weak, is it permissible for later scholars to disagree with them and rule it as such?

The questioner: If the early scholars did not deem this narration anomalous, is it permissible for a later scholar to deem it anomalous?

The Shaykh: If what?

The questioner: If it was not deemed anomalous.
The student: If they did not say it was anomalous, meaning.

The questioner: If it was not deemed anomalous, if they did not rule the narration as anomalous or weaken it, it is not permissible for a later scholar to weaken it. Pardon me, I do not mean to be bold with the scholars or anything, but I say, or even from among the contemporary scholars?

The Shaykh: Yes, it contradicts the path of the believers, but I see you being gentle in your expression, saying: If no one has pointed out an anomaly, we know that a group of the masters of hadith authenticated this hadith. And as our companion Abu al-Harith mentioned earlier, even those who do not act upon it by way of interpretation, like Imam al-Bayhaqi for example in his Sunan, he narrates this hadith and narrates the negating hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr, and so on, and he reconciles them by saying he did not mean by "I saw him moving it" anything but pointing. The point is, if we see that the masters of hadith, whether those who act upon the hadith or those who interpret it, authenticate the hadith, do you think it is possible for an individual Muslim, in the end of times, and from among the hadith scholars—and I do not mean hadith scholars in this profession—do you think it is permissible for such people to contradict these imams merely because of a doubt or a cause that appeared to them? I give you an example, if I may express it freshly, freshly. There is a hadith: .
The student : .

The Shaykh: No, this is weak, this is.
The student: Absolutely.

The Shaykh: Absolutely, yes, that is the point.
The student: May Allah save him from the Fire.

The Shaykh: Yes Yes, the point is that a group of imams followed one another in authenticating this hadith, among them for example Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, al-Diya' al-Maqdisi, al-Hafiz al-Mundhiri, and perhaps others. Today, some of those engaged in hadith were found, and in my opinion, there is ignorance on our part and research and youthful energy, but they have not yet matured in this science. Specifically, the one who commented on Musnad Abu Ya'la. This hadith was narrated by Abu Ya'la through the route of Yunus ibn Khabbab, by his chain from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Yunus ibn Khabbab is weak, so he weakened the hadith. The hadith came in other books, including Musnad Ahmad, I think, from Yunus without a full name, from Abu Hazim, I think, from Abu Sa'id, with the same hadith. So they assumed that the unnamed Yunus here is Yunus ibn Khabbab, the named one in Musnad Abu Ya'la, and they weakened the hadith. And he did not have what to mention, or at least that it gives him a warning: "Beware, so-and-so authenticated it, so-and-so authenticated it." It is extremely difficult, extremely difficult, as we know practically, to make a mistake like these people, except in a state of extreme tightness, and it is not possible to say that this hadith cannot be weak. The point is, the occasion for the coming of this hadith was in the book of supplication, at the end of al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, which I am currently in the process of preparing the second and third parts of *Sahih al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib* for publication. So I published this hadith in the authentic ones, in the sixth volume which was recently published. The point is, I came across this authentication by these imams and the weakening by this man, and then our young people followed this one who made the first mistake, and they followed, and among them is a person we see as being with us in hadith and creed, as it is said today. The point is, four against four. Four from the Salaf authenticated this hadith, and four from the contemporaries weakened it. What is the evidence that the absolute Yunus in the narration of the Musnad and others is Yunus ibn Khabbab? The truth is that that Yunus is Ibn Yazid al-A'ili. How do we know? We know by reviewing his shaykh, by reviewing the narrator from him, the identity of the person who was not named is determined. So I extracted the hadith and responded to these weakeners. My intention, may Allah bless you, and let us profit in the end. What do they call you?
The student : Abu 'Abdullah.

The Shaykh: Abu 'Abdullah, welcome. My purpose is to say, O Abu 'Abdullah, that we must be very, very careful in declaring a hadith defective or weakening a hadith when we find that those who came before us from the masters of hadith explicitly authenticated it. Even those who do not act upon it, how much more so if we believe in its authenticity and do not act upon it? There must be a doubt. And I have heard this doubt from many people. You do not find in the past fourteen centuries—it is not possible, my brothers, fourteen centuries this hadith being returned as authenticated and acted upon, even by some of the schools of jurisprudence, the Maliki school and the Hanbali school. Then people today come out and say this hadith is weak and moving the hand is contrary to the Sunnah. Why? Because only pointing came in the authentic hadiths. In the end, pointing does not contradict moving. If I say to so-and-so, you and you, the Arab, O Abu 'Abdullah: "I saw al-Albani pointing his hand to so-and-so," while another person, what will he say? "I saw him moving his hand as well." So moving does not negate pointing. And therefore I said, is there a contradiction? There is no contradiction. So you finally resorted to saying: "There is a negation, he does not move it." And it has been established, if Allah wills, that this negation is not established and is not correct. And this is sufficient.
The student : ... our Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.