Are each of Ibn Sa'd, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ibn Khaldun, al-Qasim ibn Muslimah, al-Daraqutni, Ibn Asakir, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Qani', and Abu Nu'aym...

The questioner : Here is a question regarding the authentication of certain imams, and I want to know their status in terms of strictness, leniency, and moderation. For example, is Ibn Sa'd in al-Tabaqat lenient?

The Shaykh : Regarding some of the imams, he is lenient.

The questioner : Regarding some of the imams?

The Shaykh : He is lenient.

The questioner : Meaning, if his statements are compared to the statements of some of the other imams.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : Well, if he is the sole source for a biography and it contains only Ibn Sa'd's authentication, what do we rule regarding his authentication?

The Shaykh : We accept it, as long as there is no contradicting evidence.

The questioner : As long as there is no contradicting evidence. Well, if it is known that he is lenient, is it accepted?

The Shaykh : The answer is the same.

The questioner : Well, Ibn Hibban is known to be lenient, and his sole authentication is not accepted.

The Shaykh : Stay in your place, but this is not like that.

The questioner : Meaning, this one's leniency is not like that one's?

The Shaykh : Of course; because Ibn Hazm established his authentication based on a principle on which he differed from the majority of hadith scholars. As for the other, he did not establish such a principle that would expose him, but we, through our investigation, see that he is lenient. So, if we do not find anyone to contradict him, we accept his authentication until his error in authentication becomes apparent to us.

The questioner : Well, al-'Ijli explicitly stated that he is lenient in authenticating unknown narrators?

The Shaykh : That is correct.

The questioner : So, where did he explicitly state a principle from which this is known, or is it by induction?

The Shaykh : It is by induction. But al-'Ijli's leniency, also through this induction, is not like Ibn Hibban's.

The questioner : I am asking about al-Khatib. Al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad and in his other books, in terms of leniency and strictness.

The Shaykh : All I know is that he is moderate.

The questioner : Well, Ibn Khalafun?

The Shaykh : I know nothing about him.

The questioner : In terms of leniency?

The Shaykh : I know nothing about him.

The questioner : Al-Qasim ibn Muslimah. Excuse me, Muslimah ibn al-Qasim?

The Shaykh : Is he the Egyptian?
Al-Halabi : The Andalusian. May Allah know best.

The Shaykh : As for Ibn al-Qasim, his book is not in our hands; rather, we have what is said about him in al-Tahdhib, al-Lisan, and similar works. So, I personally have not formed an opinion regarding him as to whether he is among the moderate, the strict, or the lenient. But what I have found and felt with my own hand is that we are in need of his authentications, because often he speaks about men about whom we know nothing.

The questioner : Al-Daraqutni (may Allah have mercy on him).

The Shaykh : Al-Daraqutni, without a doubt, is an imam and is not attributed to strictness or leniency. That is my belief regarding him.

The questioner : Ibn Asakir?

The Shaykh : Ibn Asakir is rarely cited for authentication, so I do not have a specific opinion about him.

The questioner : Al-Bayhaqi?

The Shaykh : Al-Bayhaqi is like al-Daraqutni.

The questioner : Well, 'Abd al-Baqi ibn Qani'?

The Shaykh : He has no significant mention in the books of criticism and al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, so I have no opinion about him.

The questioner : Abu Nu'aym?

The Shaykh : Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani; I have not formed an opinion about him.

The questioner : Some students in this era see some hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari or in Sahih Muslim and find in them, as it appears to them or as they say, for example, a defect. And the previous scholars of hadith did not speak about this hadith. So, when it is said to him that one does not speak about such things in the two Sahihs, which the imams accepted, or so and so, he says, "We are not like the Children of Israel," meaning they enforce the hadd punishment on the weak and leave the strong.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : If a nobleman steals among them, they leave him, and if a weak one steals among them, they enforce the hadd punishment on him. So, what is your advice for this type of person and for all such students?

The Shaykh : The answer to this is similar to an answer I gave previously when you asked about a person who contradicts Ibn Hajar. Do you remember your question?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And what was my answer?

The questioner : I answered that the Hafiz has induction, and he has knowledge, and he has examination and research, so someone like us cannot refute him unless he has...

The Shaykh : No, no, I do not mean that. The one who contradicts Ibn Hajar's authentication or weakening is not in matters related to Shu'bah's tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain). And regarding the ones I mentioned, I asked a question about some students who find that the Hafiz Ibn Hajar authenticates this...The student : ...and weakens that, or conversely, Ibn Hajar weakens a hadith and this...The student : ...authenticates it. My answer, which is the answer to your last question, is that this student, if he sees that he has reached a level of knowledge without being arrogant about himself, such that he sees that he has the right, after reaching this high rank of knowledge of this noble science, then he has the right to contradict him.

The questioner : Contradict what is in the two Sahihs, even if he is a scholar and not just a student of knowledge?

The Shaykh : Listen, this needs explanation. Do you remember this answer? It is the same answer, but your question is: when someone criticizes one of the two Sahihs, does he criticize it based on knowledge of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil? Or based on desire and how?

The questioner : No, based on knowledge of biographies and histories.

The Shaykh : Now, let us take an example. A hadith narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim, or one of them, in which he finds a man about whom the scholars agreed to weaken, or most of the scholars agreed to weaken, and this weakening was for a clear reason, meaning the criticism was explained. Based on that, he weakens that hadith. Does this case fall under your question or not?

The questioner : That is it.

The Shaykh : Very good. So, I say that if he relies not on his own opinion, but on the scholars who criticized the trustworthiness of one of the narrators of this hadith.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Then he has that right; but with the previous condition, if he has reached that rank that I mentioned in my previous answer, which I repeated to your ears just now. Is that clear?

The questioner : The question is clear, and I want a follow-up question, which is the same question.

The Shaykh : No, I say your question is clear, but I am asking you: is my answer clear to you?

The questioner : It is clear to me, but I want to inquire further, so to speak...

The Shaykh : There is no harm, go ahead.

The questioner : Does this mean that the two Sahihs are open to anyone who has reached a high level and has strong capability in knowledge to speak about hadiths in which the previous scholars did not speak? And those who transmit from the books of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil the weakening of the imams for this narrator—the imams who spoke about this narrator did not speak about a hadith inside the Sahih, and the Sahih passed before them and they accepted it. So, why?

The Shaykh : Your saying "they did not speak," your expression is not precise.

The questioner : It was not transmitted to us, or we did not find it, or we did not come across it.

The Shaykh : Very good. And do you know the difference between the two?

The questioner : Between what? If we did not come across it and it was not transmitted?

The Shaykh : No, between "they did not speak"...

The questioner : A big difference.

The Shaykh : A big difference.

The questioner : The fact that I did not come across it...

The Shaykh : No problem. With this great difference, does the matter differ between your first statement and your second statement?

The questioner : There is a difference, yes, and it differs. The speech differs, but...

The Shaykh : Okay. So, of your two statements, which one are you pressing me on and persisting with until we answer it?

The questioner : The statement I am making. I am searching as much as I can in the books of the people of knowledge.

The Shaykh : I do not need the details. Rely on one of the two previous statements so that I can answer you?

The questioner : Meaning, he remains silent and does not speak about the two Sahihs in which he did not find the words of the imams.

The Shaykh : That is not it, may Allah reward you. You said earlier "they did not speak," and you said later "I do not know that they spoke."

The questioner : My saying "I do not know."

The Shaykh : That is the answer, may Allah reward you. Well, if you insist on remaining with the word "I do not know," and you know, as every student of knowledge knows, the difference between saying "they did not speak" and "I do not know that they spoke," in that case, the prohibition is not as great as is imagined, if you remain with your last statement "I do not know." Is it beautiful that the one who says "I do not know" is knowledgeable?

The questioner : Knowledge regarding himself, meaning he informs about himself that he does not know this thing. A negation.

The Shaykh : So it is knowledge?

The questioner : No, it is not knowledge.

The Shaykh : So, what is the meaning of going back and forth without being held accountable, either in himself or in others? This is not absolute knowledge. And his ruling on the hadith as weak based on the statements of the imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil is knowledge?

The questioner : Mark.

The Shaykh : Well, so what is given precedence? Is it knowledge?

The questioner : I said regarding this narrator, it is not in the hadith.

The Shaykh : And I say with you, and I said earlier this...The student : ...who weakened the hadith based on the statements of the imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil regarding one of its narrators. So, I am with you on the subject. Is this knowledge or ignorance?

The questioner : Knowledge. It is knowledge.

The Shaykh : laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him).

The questioner : But it is not sufficient for ruling on the weakness of the hadith, even if the narrator has weakness.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : When it became known that the compilers of the *Sahih* books exclude a narrator who is considered sound from those who are weak, either because of the other routes they have for the hadith, or because of what they have examined, or because they knew that it has a basis, or because they selected from his narration this or that.

The Shaykh : Do I understand from your words that you mean that everything in the two *Sahih*s is authentic, and that falsehood does not reach it from before or behind it, or is there something in it that may not be authentic?

The questioner : The few words that the scholars have specified.

The Shaykh : So is there something in it?

The questioner : There is something: the few words that the memorizers have specified.

The Shaykh : And when does the role of the scholars end? In which century?

The questioner : I am asking about this.

The Shaykh : Is it authentic?

The questioner : I am asking, it is authentic.

The Shaykh : Of course, you are .

The questioner : I am asking; I am not defending your statement now, but I am asking and I want to know the evidence of every party so that I may stand upon the truth with its evidence.

The Shaykh : No problem, but how do you turn it around on me?The questioner : And say that you are asking?

The questioner : I am asking you about this: has the role of the scholars ended, as it came, for example?

The Shaykh : Have you heard such a question from him? No one has heard this question from you, or are you speaking on the wireless, meaning?

The questioner : All my words are questions; I came with questions, I did not come to discuss issues, I came to ask questions.

The Shaykh : I do not hold it against you, my brother, that you ask and ask a lot, for in that is benefit for me first, and then for the listeners second; but I was surprised by you: I asked you, and if you turn it around so that you are...The questioner : ...this is what I find strange — he laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) — now, let us develop the question: in your personal and scholarly conviction, has the role of the scholars ended, that is all, until the Day of Resurrection? Or is there still good in the Ummah?

The questioner : There is good until the Hour stands.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. If the role of the scholars has not ended; but your question suggests to me what is, of course, not divine inspiration, but suggests to me that the role of the scholars has been cut off, because you restricted it just now when you asked me if all the hadiths of the two *Sahih*s are, in your view, accepted. You said no, there are some things, but this is by the explanation of the scholars. And so you were compelled to ask me: when did the role of the scholars finally end? I have obtained the answer I wanted from my question, which is that the Muslim Ummah still has good in it. This issue is exactly like: has the role of *ijtihad* (independent legal reasoning) in jurisprudential issues ended? You know the answer: among the *muqallids* (those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence), *ijtihad* ended after the four Imams; the door of *ijtihad* was closed in the fourth century of the Hijrah. Ibn al-Salah (may Allah have mercy on him) fell into the same problem and the same trap that the *muqallid* jurists fell into when he said, "It is not for us to authenticate or weaken, but it is upon us to follow those who authenticated and weakened." And Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) refuted him with what is the truth and the correct, and that is known to you. On this basis, the rope of scientific research should remain continuous until the Day of Judgment, until the day when no one remains on the face of the earth who says, "There is no god but Allah." And if that is the case, it is not correct for us to restrict what you mentioned as a restriction, because the scholars, praise be to Allah, are present in every time and every century, and by them the argument of Allah is established over His servants. Therefore, if this student you are referring to is proficient in knowledge, as I explicitly mentioned, it does not harm him that he does not know who preceded him in weakening a hadith in the two *Sahih*s, as long as he critiques with knowledge. And if his lack of knowledge is ignorance—meaning his lack of knowledge of who critiqued is ignorance—and his critique with knowledge is knowledge, then knowledge is preferred over ignorance. But the important thing is to observe that he is proficient in the science of hadith first, and then in the science of the Shari'ah second. Because I find many of the young people today who critique, whether of the early or late scholars, and they do not understand well some matters that are supposed to be understood by students of knowledge. So if this critiquing student is proficient in this knowledge, it will not harm him that he does not know who preceded him in weakening, as long as he relies on the science of *al-jarh wa al-ta'dil* (the critique and vindication of narrators), understands the hadith and its meaning and its implication, and encompasses it with knowledge from the jurisprudential aspect, and then derives the ruling that no one preceded him to. With this condition, it is permissible for him; otherwise, it is not.