The Shaykh’s verification of the weak hadith (If you wish, I will inform you of what Allah will first say to the believers on the Day of Resurrection, and what they will first say to Him . . .) .

The Shaykh : I was going to listen to you to some of the illusions in which the youth fall, and then the opportunity arose to speak about this hadith. So now, this hadith which I verified today, I found in it some observations regarding some of those who are concerned with this knowledge. The text of the hadith is: This is weak. Take note of the hadith because the hadith is valid in his opinion that .
Abu Layla : It is weak, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Even though we have pointed out that the hadith is weak, one should not say at that point, "Allahu Akbar," because that means you are strengthening the weak. I said: It is weak. It was narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak in *Al-Zuhd*. Naturally, there are parts and editions; what do you have of them? And it is also narrated through Ahmad, and likewise by al-Tayalisi, Ibn Abi 'Asim, Ibn Abi al-Dunya, al-Tabarani, Abu Nu'aym, and al-Baghawi in *Sharh al-Sunnah*. All of them are from Ibn al-Mubarak, who said: Yahya ibn Ayyub informed us that 'Ubayd Allah ibn Zahr narrated to him from Khalid ibn Abi 'Imran from Abu 'Ayyash, who said: Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said... And Abu Nu'aym said: 'Abd Allah—meaning Ibn al-Mubarak—narrated it uniquely. I said: He is an imam, a preserver, and trustworthy. However, regarding 'Ubayd Allah ibn Zahr, al-Dhahabi said in *Al-Kashif*: There is disagreement about him, and he has narrations that are denounced; Ahmad weakened him. I said: As for Ibn Hibban, he weakened him severely, saying in *Al-Du'afa*: He is extremely denounced in his narrations; he narrates fabrications from the trustworthy. And Abu 'Ayyash, who is al-Ma'afiri al-Misri, is not well-known. Al-Bukhari did not mention him, nor did Ibn Abi Hatim, nor Ibn Hibban, nor Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam in *Al-Futuh*, nor al-Fasawi in *Al-Ma'rifah*. Yes, he mentioned him in *Al-Tahdhib* with three narrations from him, but he did not report anyone vouching for his reliability, so his status is unknown. For this reason, he said in *Al-Taqrib*: Acceptable. Meaning: acceptable when supported by a corroborating narration, and I have not found a corroborating narration for him. From this, it becomes clear the ignorance, or at least the error, of the commentator on the beginning of al-Tabarani, where he said: Its chain is good; its narrators are either trustworthy or truthful. This is one of the commentators on this book, the beginning of al-Tabarani. And this is the one I know; he is a Syrian from the Muslim Brotherhood who attached himself to this hadith with knowledge, meaning a few years ago. He came and graded this chain as good, saying: Its narrators are either trustworthy or truthful. And in it is Abu 'Ayyash, whom no one vouched for as trustworthy except Ibn Zahr, whose biography you have heard. And it is not strengthened by the fact that it has another path narrated by Qatadah ibn al-Fadl. Here, I hope you pay attention: Qatadah ibn al-Fadl. Some ignorant people will correct it, saying the correct name is Qatadah ibn al-Fadil. So remember this: that it has another path narrated by Qatadah ibn al-Fadl ibn Qatadah al-Zahawi, who said: I heard Thawr ibn Yazid narrating from Khalid ibn Ma'dan from Mu'adh ibn Jabal with similar wording. Al-Tabarani narrated it in *Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir*, part and page, and in *Musnad al-Shamiyyin*, part and page. And I said: In the first place, this narration does not strengthen it, and that is because Khalid ibn Ma'dan did not hear from Mu'adh, as Abu Hatim said, and al-'Ala'i approved this in *Al-Mursalat*. Therefore, it is possible that Abu 'Ayyash, who is in the first path and whom no one vouched for as trustworthy, is between them. Thus, the hadith returns to one Successor and one path, which is unknown as mentioned. Moreover, Qatadah ibn al-Fadl, and the phrase "ibn al-Fadil" occurred as an interjection, and it appeared in *Al-Tahdhib* and *Al-Taqrib* as "al-Fadil" by mistake. No one vouched for him as trustworthy except Ibn Hibban. And Abu Hatim said: A shaykh. And al-Hafiz said: Acceptable. I said: And you have known his convention with this term, meaning acceptable when supported by a corroborating narration. But I see that it should be explained here regarding this Qatadah in its linguistic meaning, i.e., absolutely acceptable, because a group of trustworthy people narrated from him, including Ahmad ibn Sulayman Abu al-Husayn al-Rahawi, the trustworthy preserver. So his hadith is acceptable, unless his error is established. Allah knows best. And from this investigation of these two chains to Mu'adh, the error of al-Haythami also becomes clear in his saying: Part such-and-such, page such-and-such; al-Tabarani narrated it with two chains, one of which is good. He means this second chain, and it seems the disconnection between Khalid ibn Ma'dan and Mu'adh was hidden from him. If not for that, I would have agreed with him in grading it as good, given what I explained about the status of Qatadah ibn al-Fadl. A note on two errors: The first: I mentioned earlier the error that occurred in *Al-Tahdhib* and *Al-Taqrib* regarding the name of al-Fadl, the father of this Qatadah. The commentator on the beginning of Ibn Abi 'Asim was misled by them and corrected the correct version in al-Tabarani's narration, even though it agrees with the biography of Ibn al-Fadl in the original references, such as *Tarikh al-Bukhari*, *Al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil*, and *Thiqat Ibn Hibban*. These three books are relied upon by all those who wrote in biographies, such as Ibn Hajar. Qatadah ibn al-Fadl came as Ibn al-Fadl, just as it came as Ibn al-Fadil in these three old books. Likewise, it came in the chain of the hadith as Qatadah ibn al-Fadl. So this commentator, because he was a young man, saw the narrator biographed in *Al-Tahdhib* by Ibn Hajar and *Al-Taqrib* by him, and named him Qatadah ibn al-Fadil. He said: And it appeared in al-Tabarani's book as Qatadah ibn al-Fadl, and that is an error. Why did he correct it? Because he did not know that *Al-Tahdhib* and *Al-Taqrib* are the error. How does he know that this is an error by referring to the originals? They do not know to refer to these originals. Therefore, he made the correct version an error and the error the correct version. So I said: After I have clarified here that these originals, such as *Tarikh al-Bukhari*, *Al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil*, and *Al-Thiqat* by Ibn Hibban, and so on, let the correction come from these commentators who are attached to this knowledge in this time of much fitnah. And Allah is the Helper. This is the first note. And the last: The other commentator on the beginning of al-Tabarani in two books. This is the beginning of al-Tabarani; I do not have the beginning of Ibn Abi 'Asim. This commentator on the beginning of al-Tabarani said, after attributing the hadith's biography to Ahmad only, that he attributed the hadith's biography to Ahmad only. When I traced the hadith, I said: It was narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak in *Al-Zuhd*, and through his path by Ahmad, al-Tayalisi, Ibn Abi 'Asim, Ibn Abi al-Dunya, al-Tabarani in *Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir* and in *Al-Awail*, Abu Nu'aym in *Al-Hilyah*, and al-Baghawi in *Sharh al-Sunnah*. He said: Ahmad narrated it. It is not a problem to mention one source for the sake of brevity, but Ahmad narrated it through the path of Ibn al-Mubarak, so why does he not take the hadith from its source? Because he does not know it, like these people. What can he do? He puts his name as the editor of such-and-such a book, which consists of disjointed quotes; it is neither ripe nor useful fruit. So, after attributing it to Ahmad only, he said: And he narrated it, meaning Ahmad, from the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri with similar wording, and attributed that to the book *Al-Fath al-Rabbani* with part and page. And you, O reader, if you refer to the mentioned *Al-Fath*, you will find that he attributed this hadith of Abu Sa'id to al-Bukhari and Muslim and al-Tirmidhi. So what does the commentator's attribution of the hadith to Ahmad, excluding the two Shaykhs, indicate? The hadith is in the two Sahihs, and he says: Ahmad narrated it! This means the man has no knowledge, because his attribution to Ahmad does not give validity; his attribution to the two Shaykhs gives validity. This is first. Then I also said: And the hadith of Abu Sa'id is not suitable as a corroborating narration for the hadith of the biography, because it differs from it completely, except in the last sentence of it, with a difference in wording. And here is its wording so that you may be clear about the matter. I think you have understood the weak hadith? Look at the hadith of Abu Sa'id which he made a corroborating narration for this weak hadith. This hadith he made a corroborating narration for the weak hadith. This is a calamity for the students of knowledge today who are rushing and attacking the science of hadith because they thought it was easy to attain. So they put books here and there, copying from here and there, and say: We have authored a book! And they mislead people without them realizing. And therefore, whether in the science of hadith or the science of fiqh, we advise you, O student of knowledge: If you are a scholar, issue fatwas with what you know, and your reward is with Allah. And if you are not a scholar, ask the people of knowledge. This is how our Lord commands us in the Noble Qur'an.
Abu Layla : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And beware of yourselves. As for the hadith mentioned earlier, I think I will summarize it, if Allah wills, soon. And you will hear, Abu Faris, that the phrase Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi clung to—that every mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) is a kafir (disbeliever), but not every kafir is a mushrik—is incorrect. The hadith mentioned earlier, meaning the Jews, we mentioned this hadith of al-Hadrami, whose name is al-Harith ibn Yazid, from Thabit ibn al-Harith al-Ansari, from some of those who were with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). I said: This is a weak chain of narration, to the end of it. All its narrators are trustworthy except Thabit ibn al-Harith al-Ansari, who is not known for being just or criticized. No one among the masters of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) mentioned him except Ibn Abi Hatim, through the narration of this al-Harith ibn Yazid only, and he left him blank, meaning he did not say he was trustworthy or anything else. Ibn Hisham mentioned in al-Sirah, from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from al-Zuhri, that the Ansar on the day of Uhud said to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): "O Messenger of Allah, should we not seek the help of our allies from among the Jews?" He said: Ibn Kathir mentioned the same in al-Bidaya, and before him Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-Ma'ad, and this agrees with the authentic hadith from A'isha: or and it is traced in al-Sahihah with number such-and-such. So I say: If the weakness of the hadith of the title and what is in it regarding his (peace and blessings be upon him) offering to the Jews to fight with him becomes clear to you, then there is no need at that time to reconcile it with the authentic hadith of A'isha, as al-Tahawi did when he said: "Because the Jews whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) invited to fight Abu Sufyan with him are not from those mushrikin who are worshippers of idols; these are the People of the Book, whose difference from the worshippers of idols we have mentioned in the chapter that preceded this." I said: He is referring to some rulings that were specific to the People of the Book and not to the mushrikin, such as the permissibility of their slaughtered meat and marrying their women, and other things, some of which are subject to scrutiny. And he based his statement on that, saying: "So every shirk (associating partners with Allah) is kufr (disbelief), but not every kufr is shirk." I say: Even if we hypothetically accepted his statement, there is no need for the mentioned ta'wil (figurative interpretation) for two reasons. The first: Ta'wil is a branch of authentication, as is known, and as long as the hadith is not authentic, as we have clarified, there is no justification for interpreting the authentic hadith because of it, as is clear and not hidden from anyone, if Allah wills. The second: How is it correct to say about the Jews and Christians that they are not from the mushrikin, while Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said after the verse: So whoever makes a son for Allah, how can he not be from the mushrikin? This is a strange slip from one like Imam al-Tahawi. And this does not contradict the fact that they have those rulings in which no one other than the People of the Book among the mushrikin shares with them, because they share with them in other rulings, as is not hidden from those of sound understanding. In the sense that if the People of the Book share with the mushrikin in rulings and differ from them in rulings, what justifies their differing from them in rulings that we should not rule that they are mushrikin, when they have shared with them in rulings and shared with them in shirk? So they are mushrikin, but they are People of the Book and have specific rulings for them. Then I said: And the researcher jurist whom Allah has saved from taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) in the Book and the Sunnah will not fail to find what confirms what preceded and invalidates al-Tahawi's previous statement: "Not every kufr is shirk." Among that is the attention to that dialogue between the believer and the kafir who boasted of his wealth and his two gardens, as He (Mighty and Majestic) said in Surat al-Kahf: So this is kufr, and he did not associate partners in al-Tahawi's opinion, but the context refutes him. Follow me in His saying: So reflect on how he described his companion the kafir with kufr, then he purified himself from it, expressing it by its synonym, which is shirk, and he said: And this shirk is what the kafir described himself with in what follows. Follow me in His saying after his companion the believer admonished him: I said: So this statement of his, along with the context of the story, is very clear that his shirk was only his doubt about the Hereafter, and this is kufr, and it is not shirk in al-Tahawi's opinion, so it is clearly invalid. And what confirms that from the Sunnah is his (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) saying: Narrated by the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) and others from Ibn Abbas, and it is traced in al-Sahih with number such-and-such. The intended meaning is the Jews and Christians, as other hadiths indicate, among them his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: Narrated by Muslim and others, and it is traced there in al-Sahihah. And since the hadith of Ibn Abbas, which was narrated by the two Shaykhs, and since the hadith of Ibn Abbas is a decisive proof in the matter, al-Tahawi hinted at its authenticity out of bias for his madhhab (school of jurisprudence), unfortunately, and claimed that it was a mistake by Ibn Uyaynah, saying: "Because he used to narrate from his memory." It is possible that he replaced the Jews and Christians with the mushrikin, and he did not have the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) to distinguish between that. Sufyan ibn Uyaynah was one of the great shaykhs of Imam Ahmad and one of the trustworthy memorizers. First, he attributed it to a mistake, and with a possible excuse, and he did not have the fiqh and understanding to distinguish between the mushrikin and the Jews and Christians. So he said, may Allah forgive him, for he knows that the narration of a trustworthy memorizer like Ibn Uyaynah from his memory is not a defect, but rather a point of pride for him, and that criticizing a trustworthy person based on mere possibility is not the practice of fair scholars. But it is madhhab bias, we ask for safety. And according to al-Tahawi's madhhab, pay attention, O Abu Faris and those around you, and according to al-Tahawi's madhhab, this allows Allah to forgive kufr, for His saying: And with this verse, Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) argued against Abu Hanifa, who is the followed imam of al-Tahawi in the claimed distinction, and he said after it: Ibn Hazm said: "If there were kufr here that is not shirk, it would be forgiven for whom Allah wills, unlike shirk, and no Muslim says this." Then he followed that with other strong proofs, and then he said: "So it is established that every kufr is shirk and every shirk is kufr, and that they are two legal terms that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) applied to one meaning." And if not for the fear of lengthening, I would have quoted all his words for their excellence and rarity. Let whoever wants more and fiqh refer to it. And the summary is that the hadith is weak in its chain and denounced in its text, and that seeking the help of the People of the Book in jihad against the disbelievers is included in his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: And the wording of Muslim is: Note: There had been a discussion between me and some of the brothers about this hadith and that it is weak in its chain, so he asked about the defect, and I mentioned the unknown narrator. After a few days, he called me on the phone and read to me the words of al-Hafiz in al-Isabah in the biography of Thabit ibn al-Harith al-Ansari, and that he is a Companion, and he requested to look into it. I saw that Ibn Hajar had included him in the first section of it, and he listed two hadiths for him that he narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and they do not indicate his Companionship. And he pointed to this hadith as well, and as you see, he narrates it from some of the Companions who witnessed the Battle of Uhud. And I found for him another hadith that he narrates through Abu Hurayrah; he narrates it from Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So it became more likely to me that he was not a Companion, but a Tabi'i (successor) of unknown status, as I mentioned at the beginning of this speech. And for that reason, I saw that I should record in detail what I summarized here under one of the two hadiths mentioned, and they will come, if Allah wills, with numbers 6116 and 6117. And Allah is the guarantor of success.
Abu Layla : May Allah strengthen you, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : O Allah, amen. Now we need to hear the follow-up communications.

The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, after hearing what you said, it is finished; there is no follow-up.

The Shaykh : Is it finished?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah. But I will add something for you. In truth, this is the situation of every beginner in knowledge, and I was the same, and perhaps I still am. I used to read this hadith and I would be troubled by a difficulty, because in some narrations in some narrations I would ask myself: how did he associate partners with Allah? My brother, this is a person who abandons prayer, specifically the one who abandons it out of laziness. How does that mean he associated partners with Allah? I used to think, what is it? Perhaps there was a mistake by the narrator. I am a student of knowledge, and then Allah opened the door, even if it was only a crack, and praise be to Allah, so I came to know that legally...