The Shaykh’s remarks on the unknown narrator and the ruling on citing him as evidence.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : There are two different people. For example, he says that the scholars cite the hadith of the unknown narrator, or they authenticate it, or they say the hadith of the unknown narrator is how is this? He says, "So-and-so said about so-and-so that he is unknown, and another so-and-so authenticated his hadith." So, he is fabricating a rule by combining two contradictory statements: one said about a narrator that he is unknown, and another authenticated a hadith from this unknown person. Therefore, the scholars authenticate the hadiths of the unknown.
The questioner : No, that is not correct. It is not that narrator.
The Shaykh : This is it. No, it is not the one who said about the narrator that he is unknown; it is the one who authenticated it.
The questioner: Yes, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Ah, this is not called a narrator. Pay attention. It is not said about the Imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) that they are narrators. Rather, they critique narrators and vouch for narrators. So, the Imam who says about a narrator that he is unknown, and another authenticates his hadith—he is giving examples. He answers with a hadith, for example, from Sahih Muslim where a man other than Muslim said about him that he is unknown. So, do scholars authenticate the hadiths of the unknown? This is called fabrication. When is it possible to say this? If so-and-so said about so-and-so that he is unknown, and yet he authenticated his hadith. And with this, if it is said that he authenticated his hadith, it must also be taken with caution. Why? Because he may have authenticated the hadith based on corroborating evidence, at least in his mind. So, if he says in a hadith that does not contain that unknown person, at that point the Hafiz (master of hadith) says, and this Hafiz said about the hadith of this unknown person, in a hadith from the hadiths of this unknown person, "The hadith is authentic." This is different from if he said, "Its chain is authentic." If he said, "Its chain is authentic," it is possible to say he authenticates it. Yes, what they are saying. Yes.
The questioner : No, that is not correct. It is not that narrator.
The Shaykh : This is it. No, it is not the one who said about the narrator that he is unknown; it is the one who authenticated it.
The questioner: Yes, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Ah, this is not called a narrator. Pay attention. It is not said about the Imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) that they are narrators. Rather, they critique narrators and vouch for narrators. So, the Imam who says about a narrator that he is unknown, and another authenticates his hadith—he is giving examples. He answers with a hadith, for example, from Sahih Muslim where a man other than Muslim said about him that he is unknown. So, do scholars authenticate the hadiths of the unknown? This is called fabrication. When is it possible to say this? If so-and-so said about so-and-so that he is unknown, and yet he authenticated his hadith. And with this, if it is said that he authenticated his hadith, it must also be taken with caution. Why? Because he may have authenticated the hadith based on corroborating evidence, at least in his mind. So, if he says in a hadith that does not contain that unknown person, at that point the Hafiz (master of hadith) says, and this Hafiz said about the hadith of this unknown person, in a hadith from the hadiths of this unknown person, "The hadith is authentic." This is different from if he said, "Its chain is authentic." If he said, "Its chain is authentic," it is possible to say he authenticates it. Yes, what they are saying. Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.