Some people claim that you authenticate and weaken hadiths without any standards

The questioner : Some people claim that you weaken and authenticate without any standards. The evidence for this is that sometimes you are strict in authenticating, sometimes you are strict in weakening, sometimes you authenticate in *Sahih* and weaken in *Sahih al-Jami'*, and you say: "We have retracted such and such." So what is your answer?

The Shaykh : We say: If the person is from among the scholars, we are ready to discuss with him what he claims. But if he is not from among the scholars, his words carry no weight. This is from one perspective.
From another perspective, I acknowledge and say, as I said earlier: If it is permissible for me to take pride, I take pride in the fact that when I realize an error, I retract it and do not persist in it as others do. It is very regrettable that a virtue has become a vice, or an ugly thing, for some people today, and perhaps even a moral defect! What is wrong with a person if he realizes an error in a book and retracts it, especially in a science like hadith, authentication, and weakening, from which millions of Muslim scholars have turned away throughout these long centuries? Why? Because of its difficulty. And I give you a very simple example, even if it is related to terminology, but the example is clear:
is divided, according to the scholars of hadith—and I say this is the correct view—into *sahih li-dhatihi* (authentic in itself) and *sahih li-ghayrihi* (authentic due to other evidence). Similarly, the *hasan* hadith is divided, according to the scholars, into: *hasan li-dhatihi* (good in itself) and *hasan li-ghayrihi* (good due to other evidence).
And here is the point of inquiry now: What does this mean, a *hasan li-dhatihi* hadith and a *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith? It means that this hadith does not have a valid chain, but it has a valid chain. This is the definition of what? The *hasan li-dhatihi* hadith. And the *hasan li-dhatihi* hadith is one in which all the conditions of a *sahih* hadith are met, but one of its narrators had less precision and memorization than the level of memorization and precision of the narrator of a *sahih* hadith. Therefore, they said of his hadith: It is a *hasan li-dhatihi* hadith. Then the example comes at the end: What is the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith? It means the hadith that does not have a valid chain. Then Shaykh Al-Albani comes—other than this one who is in the dock of accusation—he comes to a hadith, looks at its chain, and weakens it. Time passes and time passes, and he says that this is a weak hadith. And then, while he is immersed all his life in studying manuscripts, let alone printed books, he finds another route for this hadith. The least that this other route benefits that weak hadith is that it raises it from weakness to the rank of *hasan li-ghayrihi*. So I say in another book: This is a *hasan* hadith. Why? Why did I say before that it was weak, and then finally say in another book that it is *hasan*? Because something became clear to me that I did not know. And although, by nature, as Allah—Mighty and Majestic—described: , but the most truthful application of such a text is for the one who works in the science of hadith, due to the thousands of routes. Therefore, it is obligatory for a person to search to the extent of his ability. And I did this—perhaps I do not say this in praise, but to clarify the reality—I searched and investigated the routes of hadith in a way that may not exist in the present age. And many people of fairness and knowledge acknowledge this reality. But did I know everything? By no means! A great deal has been missed by me and continues to be missed.
This is a simple example. So the one who is ignorant of this reality: Why did Al-Albani weaken the hadith in such-and-such a book and then authenticate it in such-and-such a book? This is an example of a hadith that I weakened in one book and strengthened in another. And the reverse is also true and occurs: Perhaps I authenticate a hadith in a book, and years pass, and then I discover a hidden defect in that chain which I had authenticated, so I correct myself. Or perhaps someone else corrects me, and I benefit from it, so I declare clearly that this hadith has a weak chain. If there is room for explanation, I do so and explain and elaborate. The place for that is the two famous books, *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah* (The Chain of Authentic Hadiths) and *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah* (The Chain of Weak Hadiths). And if there is no room, I limit myself to stating the rank, as I did in *Sahih al-Jami'* and *Da'if al-Jami'*.
These matters are hardly noticed by the scholars, let alone the students of knowledge, let alone those below them. Therefore, I advise our brothers, all the students of knowledge, whatever their orientations and partisanship—may Allah protect us and them—to be cautious in their criticism. And to ask themselves, as I received criticism from some brothers on some nights we spent abroad, for example, criticizing me regarding a hadith about *tatiyyah* (taking an omen as a bad sign); meaning: "And none of us but whom? is afflicted by *tatiyyah*, and then Allah removes it through reliance." So he wrote to me, about a page, saying: You made a mistake when you mentioned: "And none of us." This is not from the hadith, but rather this is an insertion, according to what he transmitted only. I said: By Allah, this is a sin, and none of us but makes a mistake. When I returned to the hadith that I cited in *Silsilah*, and I found that I had indicated the statement that he is confronting me with, saying that this phrase is an insertion; how did you authenticate it? And I found the statement there in *Sahihah* where I indicated the insertion, and I quoted the words of some of the Imams from whom he quoted that this addition is an insertion. But I adopt the opinion of other scholars that this is not an insertion because it comes in the core of the text. This is an example, meaning, of the haste of some of our brothers to deny, as if the purpose is mere denial and not scientific research.
In summary: I may authenticate a hadith and then a defect becomes clear to me later. Defects are numerous in this science. It may be, for example, that there is a hidden *mursal* (report missing the Companion link), and hidden *mursal* is among the defects for which some scholars say that knowing the defects of hadith in terms of *mursal* is the most precise type of hadith science. Who knows this field and its importance, and that it may be hidden from the greatest of scholars? Only the one who has practiced the matter himself knows that.
In summary: This question that I heard now is not a new matter. We receive many messages and discussions, and the answer in brief is: The one who makes this criticism, I do not think he is from among the scholars. And if I assume the best of him, he is one of our enthusiastic young Muslims, and then he proceeds to criticism without awareness. This is if he is not from among those who are afflicted with malice and hatred, by whom we have been tested in some lands. And we ask Allah—Mighty and Majestic—to rectify our souls, and to purify our hearts from resentment, hatred, and envy, and to unite us upon the Book of Allah and the guidance of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

The questioner : ... Last question.