The questioner : Yes, another question regarding the hadith narrated by Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih through Abu ibn al-Abbas from

The questioner: Yes, another question regarding the hadith narrated by Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih through Abu ibn al-Abbas from his father from his grandfather that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had a horse called al-Lahyi. So, this hadith, in our view, meaning Abu [ibn al-Abbas], the critics agreed to weaken him, but al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi says in al-Mizan that he is a good narrator. So, how did al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi conclude, even though he means... to improve the hadith? ?

The Shaykh: I do not know.

The questioner: Meaning, they all agreed to weaken him, except al-Daraqutni who said: "Sahih" (authentic), which is considered a weak grading; al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi said in al-Mizan: "He is a good narrator." ?

The Shaykh: ...he adopted the rule he stated: "What he narratedThe Shaykh : if it crossed the bridge."

The questioner: You did not care for this statement, so some people among us in Egypt took it as a pretext: they sayThe Shaykh : al-Albani permits criticizing the narrators of the two Sahihs and says that everyone who crossed the bridge... this is baseless talk and the like.

The Shaykh: How do you mean? ?

The questioner: Meaning, he says that the narrators of the two Sahihs jumped over the bridge, as in the biography of Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Taymi. Al-Dhahabi says, commenting on Ahmad's statement "munkar hadith" (denounced narration), "he crossed the bridge by al-Bukhari and Muslim including him." So, you said that this phrase is not precise from a scientific standpoint. So, some people took this phrase and said they criticize the two Sahihs, and among those who say this isThe Shaykh : Nasir al-Din al-Albani, so he does not respect the narrators of the two Sahihs, and it is possible that defects enter from them, and the like. ?

The Shaykh: This is, of course, a mutual and repeated attribution of what is not correct. This is the method of the people of desires, always and forever. Meaning, any researcher today cannot say that Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are books from which falsehood does not come from before or behind them. We say here in the two Sahihs there are some illusions and some errors, and some hadiths that cannot be said to be anything but weak. Is it permissible for a person to say that this means al-Albani does not give weight to the two Sahihs? ! ..No fair person would ever say that.

The questioner: He gave you an example, which is your weakening of Muslim's hadith regarding the hour of response, the hadith of Abu Musa. He says:The Shaykh : Nasir al-Din al-Albani weakened this hadith, even though it is in Sahih Muslim. First, if he criticized it due to the narration of Makhrama, he said in al-Irwaa: "The narration of Makhrama has a correct path." And if he criticized it due to the hadith contradicting other hadiths, such as after the 'Asr prayer or the like, he says that al-Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned in al-Fath that Ibn al-Qayyim reconciled the two hadiths, and al-Hafiz said after quoting Ibn al-Qayyim's words: "And this is more appropriate in the path of reconciliation, and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi and al-Mahab al-Tabari adopted it," and he listed a group. He says, meaning, we do not prioritize weakening a hadith in Muslim if there is a possibility of reconciliation; we do not prefer one over the other if there is a possibility of reconciliation.

The Shaykh: And I agree with him in this, if there is a possibility of reconciliation. But he left out a third point, I do not know why he did not mention it. ? You mentioned it twice.

The questioner: Have you read Ibn al-Qayyim's reconciliation? ?

The Shaykh: I am not concerned with it, because my weakening of the hadith is not from these aspects, but my predecessor in that is Imam al-Daraqutni, who criticized it due to it being mawquf (stopping at a Companion). And this is a critical defect that is truly damaging. So, we... meaning, if there is a possibility of reconciling the two authentic hadiths, it is not permissible to reject one with the other. This is known by beginners in this science. But when the objective criticism of this hadith leads to it being mawquf, then there is no need for us to reconcile a mawquf with a marfu' (traced to the Prophet). Nevertheless, now, for the sake of discussion, what is the reconciliation between the two hadiths? ?

The questioner: Shaykh al-Islam Ibn al-Qayyim says: "And in my view, the time between the imam ascending [the pulpit] and the completion of the prayer is also a time of response and supplication, and the like." He says: So, it is valid, meaning the 'Asr prayer... I mean, the hadith of Abu Musa is understood to mean that the hour is not specific, but it is an hour that varies with the supplication and invocation of the Muslims to their Lord, and the like. He says this is an hour in which response is hoped for, from when the imam ascends until the prayer is completed. He says this is also an hour of response. He says it was not specified by itself. ?

The Shaykh: How is this with the hadiths in the two Sahihs and others that explicitly state it? Some of the Salaf criticized how the hour can be an hour of response while the prayer is disliked in it, after 'Asr. Meaning, how is this? This means the hour is specific. And in any case, it is the previous answer that I went to, that the hadith is not valid as marfu' to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So, there is no need then to force reconciliation. It is not hidden from you that reconciliation is a branch of authentication. And as you also know, in Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's Sharh al-Nukhba, it says: "If two contradictory hadiths come from the category of acceptable ones, they are reconciled by one of the many ways of reconciliation." So, these many ways, al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi brought them in his commentary on the introduction to the Sciences of Hadith to more than a hundred ways. So, there is no doubt that reconciliation is the original principle, but between two acceptable hadiths. As for reconciling an authentic hadith with many paths and corroborations with a hadith that some might use the term shadhdh (anomalous) for if its elevation were valid, how so when it is a mawquf hadith? Then, Ibn al-Qayyim's words mean that he opened the door that the hour of response on Friday... look now how we entered into ta'wil (figurative interpretation), it opens doors for us. The hour of response on Friday is not limited to two hours, but an hour of the preacher's sitting and an hour after 'Asr, but rather hours. This ta'wil opens this door for us. I believe that this interpreter cannot be bound by this obligation that we are binding him with now, is it not so? ?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: So we will say, then, what led you to say here two hours? That means, in addition to the hadith of Abu Musa, if we say to him, as we learned from some of the later scholars, "Establish the Throne and then erase," we say to him, "Establish the hadith and we are with you in the reconciliation." And perhaps this amount is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

The questioner: But our Shaykh, this is the last question I will ask.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.