It is reported that Shaykh Ahmad Shakir said: Rejecting the report of a trustworthy narrator in this manner resembles the methodology of the Mu'tazilah; what is your opinion?

The questioner : They say...

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : They say... the Mu'tazilah by rejecting the report of a trustworthy narrator...

The Shaykh : Do the Mu'tazilah say to reject the hadith of a trustworthy narrator?

The questioner : Yes, ... the hadith of the just and trustworthy one, he says: If we reject the hadith of a trustworthy narrator, it is imitating the Mu'tazilah in rejecting the reports of the trustworthy ones. Ahmad Shakir in his commentary on "Al-Ba'ith"...

The Shaykh : I do not remember Ahmad Shakir's statement now, but suppose he did say that, they are not equal, for example. The majority of hadith scholars, especially the early ones like al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Daraqutni. What is the book "Al-Ilal fi al-Hadith" by al-Daraqutni but that it is based on this principle? He brings a hadith where, if you look at its chain of narration from beginning to end, you judge it to be authentic, but if you look at this hadith from the narration of other trustworthy narrators, you judge it to be anomalous. And what is an anomalous hadith when it is said of the one who rejects the addition of a trustworthy narrator under the condition mentioned earlier that he is like the Mu'tazilah? This is the denial of the text as defined by all hadith scholars; yes, "What a just and precise narrator narrates from his like, from his like, to the end of the chain, and it is not anomalous and not defective." If this rule is not accepted under the condition mentioned previously, there is no anomaly here. And the matter is as Imam al-Shafi'i said: An anomalous hadith is not when a trustworthy narrator narrates what the trustworthy ones did not narrate, but rather an anomalous hadith is when a trustworthy narrator narrates what contradicts the trustworthy ones.