Is it correct to attribute to Imam Ahmad that he weakened Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal, even though the majority of scholars graded him as trustworthy?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Should we not say... what our brother Hajjaj said about Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal was graded as trustworthy by a group of Imams. Al-Saji reported from Ahmad that he became confused in his hadiths. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in *Hadi al-Sari*, refuted an issue, in which I think there are two points, regarding Imam Ahmad: the issue of weakening him. Does the Hafiz mean weakening him, or does he mean confusion? He is trustworthy; we agree that he is trustworthy... Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal, but he became confused or was confused, using this phrase. So the thing that this other person denies... Ibn Hajar says: "And al-Saji deviated in his weakening of him..." He is trustworthy, but al-Saji reported from Ahmad that he became confused. Should we not say now that what our brother mentioned regarding him has become a basis for argument?The Shaykh : And a group of Imams graded him as trustworthy. I mean, is it not better not to boycott his hadith because of this, since if it is outside the two Sahihs...
The Shaykh : This is actually fine, but it is not enough to simply exclude it when we know that this example... I have a report in some of my books that Ibn Hazm also reported from al-Saji, among others.
The questioner : My teacher, I came across this statement in volume thirteen of *Fath al-Bari*. Ibn Hajar says: "Ibn Hazm weakened him from Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal."
The Shaykh : No, I am saying that Ibn Hazm reported the criticism of Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal from Ahmad and others. I think it was Yahya ibn Ma'in.
The questioner : For confusion?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : The Hafiz says in the introduction to *Fath*: "It is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him," regarding the weakening of Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal, page 465 of the introduction. He says: "My teacher mentioned and said about Ahmad: 'And it is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him.'" So the phrase "it is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him" means that Ahmad ibn Hanbal is excluded from the group of those who weaken him, according to the opinion of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar?
The student: ... He is trustworthy, but the issue of confusion.
The Shaykh : The research is about confusion. He is saying that it means...
The questioner : It is not about confusion. It is that it is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened his narrations.
The Shaykh : I mean, the issue needs clarification. If Imam Ibn Hajar denies the weakening by Imam Ahmad, that does not imply the denial of the confusion. For example, it is not correct to say that Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i is weak, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because he is not weak. Rather, he is trustworthy, and he has two states, as you all know. If he narrated before the confusion, he is a basis for argument; otherwise, he is not. As for the one who is called weak, you know that he is not used as a basis for argument in the other state. So there is a difference between Ibn Hajar saying "weakness of the narration" or "weakening by Ahmad" and the ruling of Ahmad upon him as "confusion." There is a general and specific aspect between the two texts.
The questioner : Yes, but it is possible, my Shaykh, to interpret al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar's statement as referring to confusion, in that there is no report from Ahmad in *al-Tahdhib* or elsewhere, after research, of his weakening him. I mean, there is no report from Ahmad, after research, that he said Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal is weak. But this phrase exists... The Hafiz says: "Al-Saji reported from Ahmad that he used to become confused," then he said: "It is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him." So it seems he views confusion as a weakening of the hadiths.
The student: The opposite. I see that this is completely different, because if it is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him, it is because this was not reported or established.
The Shaykh : This absolute weakening is what is denied. I do not think anyone weakens Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal with an absolute weakening.
The student : Ibn Hajar, my teacher, Ibn Hajar reports in volume thirteen from Ibn Hazm that he weakened him?
The Shaykh : Yes, but how did he weaken him? I remember that I wrote in some of my notes and corrections on some of my books, reporting from Ibn Hazm, perhaps in his book *Al-Fasl fi al-Nahl*, that he said on such-and-such page: "Ahmad and so-and-so, I think it is Ibn Ma'in, said he became confused." Yes, al-Saji now, because I am trying to remember the topic. Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal has a connection to my thesis in response to al-Habashi.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : I think, if I remember, on some occasion by phone, it is permissible that I am commenting there on this benefit. Yes.
The student: I saw a comment of yours, my teacher, on your copy of... about Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal, but it does not have this. I mean, you added it as an addition in the margin. Yes, very well, my master.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal was graded as trustworthy by a group of Imams. Al-Saji reported from Ahmad that he became confused in his hadiths. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in *Hadi al-Sari*, refuted an issue, in which I think there are two points, regarding Imam Ahmad: the issue of weakening him. Does the Hafiz mean weakening him, or does he mean confusion? He is trustworthy; we agree that he is trustworthy... Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal, but he became confused or was confused, using this phrase. So the thing that this other person denies... Ibn Hajar says: "And al-Saji deviated in his weakening of him..." He is trustworthy, but al-Saji reported from Ahmad that he became confused. Should we not say now that what our brother mentioned regarding him has become a basis for argument?The Shaykh : And a group of Imams graded him as trustworthy. I mean, is it not better not to boycott his hadith because of this, since if it is outside the two Sahihs...
The Shaykh : This is actually fine, but it is not enough to simply exclude it when we know that this example... I have a report in some of my books that Ibn Hazm also reported from al-Saji, among others.
The questioner : My teacher, I came across this statement in volume thirteen of *Fath al-Bari*. Ibn Hajar says: "Ibn Hazm weakened him from Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal."
The Shaykh : No, I am saying that Ibn Hazm reported the criticism of Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal from Ahmad and others. I think it was Yahya ibn Ma'in.
The questioner : For confusion?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : The Hafiz says in the introduction to *Fath*: "It is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him," regarding the weakening of Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal, page 465 of the introduction. He says: "My teacher mentioned and said about Ahmad: 'And it is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him.'" So the phrase "it is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him" means that Ahmad ibn Hanbal is excluded from the group of those who weaken him, according to the opinion of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar?
The student: ... He is trustworthy, but the issue of confusion.
The Shaykh : The research is about confusion. He is saying that it means...
The questioner : It is not about confusion. It is that it is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened his narrations.
The Shaykh : I mean, the issue needs clarification. If Imam Ibn Hajar denies the weakening by Imam Ahmad, that does not imply the denial of the confusion. For example, it is not correct to say that Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i is weak, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because he is not weak. Rather, he is trustworthy, and he has two states, as you all know. If he narrated before the confusion, he is a basis for argument; otherwise, he is not. As for the one who is called weak, you know that he is not used as a basis for argument in the other state. So there is a difference between Ibn Hajar saying "weakness of the narration" or "weakening by Ahmad" and the ruling of Ahmad upon him as "confusion." There is a general and specific aspect between the two texts.
The questioner : Yes, but it is possible, my Shaykh, to interpret al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar's statement as referring to confusion, in that there is no report from Ahmad in *al-Tahdhib* or elsewhere, after research, of his weakening him. I mean, there is no report from Ahmad, after research, that he said Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal is weak. But this phrase exists... The Hafiz says: "Al-Saji reported from Ahmad that he used to become confused," then he said: "It is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him." So it seems he views confusion as a weakening of the hadiths.
The student: The opposite. I see that this is completely different, because if it is not authentic from Ahmad that he weakened him, it is because this was not reported or established.
The Shaykh : This absolute weakening is what is denied. I do not think anyone weakens Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal with an absolute weakening.
The student : Ibn Hajar, my teacher, Ibn Hajar reports in volume thirteen from Ibn Hazm that he weakened him?
The Shaykh : Yes, but how did he weaken him? I remember that I wrote in some of my notes and corrections on some of my books, reporting from Ibn Hazm, perhaps in his book *Al-Fasl fi al-Nahl*, that he said on such-and-such page: "Ahmad and so-and-so, I think it is Ibn Ma'in, said he became confused." Yes, al-Saji now, because I am trying to remember the topic. Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal has a connection to my thesis in response to al-Habashi.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : I think, if I remember, on some occasion by phone, it is permissible that I am commenting there on this benefit. Yes.
The student: I saw a comment of yours, my teacher, on your copy of... about Sa'id ibn Abi Hilal, but it does not have this. I mean, you added it as an addition in the margin. Yes, very well, my master.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.