Is it true that Shaykh Al-Albani authenticates and weakens hadiths without criteria?

The questioner : Some people claim that you weaken and authenticate hadiths without criteria. The evidence for this is that sometimes you are strict in authenticating, and sometimes you are strict in weakening. Sometimes you authenticate a hadith in *Sahih* and weaken it in *Sahih al-Jami'*, saying, "We have retracted such and such." What is your response?

The Shaykh : We say that if someone is among the scholars of knowledge, we are ready to discuss with him what he claims. But if he is not among the scholars of knowledge, his words carry no weight. This is from one perspective. From another perspective, I acknowledge and say, as I mentioned earlier, if it is permissible for me to take pride, then I take pride in the fact that when I realize I have made a mistake, I retract it and do not persist in it as others do. It is very regrettable that virtue has today become, with some people, a vice or something ugly, or perhaps a moral flaw. What is wrong with a person who realizes his error in a book and retracts it, especially in a science like this—modern science, and the verification and weakening of hadith—which millions of Muslim scholars have turned away from throughout these long centuries because of its difficulty? I give you a very simple example, and although it relates to terminology, the example is clear. The hadith, according to the scholars of hadith, and I say the authentic hadith, is divided into *sahih li-dhatihi* (authentic in itself) and *sahih li-ghayrihi* (authentic through other means). Likewise, the *hasan* (good) hadith is divided by the scholars into *hasan li-dhatihi* (good in itself) and *hasan li-ghayrihi* (good through other means). The question now is: what does this mean? A *hasan li-dhatihi* hadith and a *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith mean that this hadith does not have a valid chain, but it has a valid chain. This is the definition of what? The *hasan li-dhatihi* hadith. The *hasan li-dhatihi* hadith is one in which the conditions of the *sahih* hadith are met in terms of strength, but one of its narrators has less precision and memorization than the level of memorization and precision of a narrator of a *sahih* hadith. Therefore, they said of his hadith that it is *hasan li-dhatihi*. Then the example comes at the end. What is the *hasan li-ghayrihi* hadith? It means the hadith that does not have a valid chain. Then Shaykh Al-Albani comes—not anyone else, the one who is placed in the dock of accusation—he comes to a hadith, examines its chain, weakens it, and time passes and time passes, and he says that this hadith is weak. And then, having immersed himself his whole life in studying manuscripts, let alone printed books, he finds another route for this hadith. The least that this other route provides for that weak hadith is to raise it from weakness to the rank of *hasan li-ghayrihi*. So I say in another book: this hadith is *hasan*. Why did I say before that it was weak, and then finally, in your last book, say it is *hasan*? Because it became clear to me that I did not know it. And although a person, by nature, as Allah Mighty and Majestic described, , but the most truthful application of such a text is for the one who works in the science of hadith, because of the multitude of routes, in the thousands. And therefore, it is obligatory for a person to search as much as he can. And I did so. Perhaps I do not say this in praise, but to state the reality. I searched and investigated the routes of the hadith in a way that may not exist in the present age. And many people of fairness and knowledge acknowledge this reality. But am I right about everything? No, by no means. I miss things and things are missed by me. This is a simple example. The one who is ignorant of this reality asks: why did Al-Albani weaken the hadith in such-and-such a book, and then verify it in such-and-such a book? This is an example of a hadith that I weakened in one book and strengthened in another. And the reverse is also true. It happens that I verify a hadith in a book, and years pass, and then I discover a hidden defect in that chain which I had verified, so I critique myself, or perhaps someone else critiques me, and I benefit from it. So I declare it openly: this hadith has a weak chain. If there is room for explanation, I do so and explain and elaborate. The place for that is the two well-known books: *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah* (The Chain of Authentic Hadiths) and *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah* (The Chain of Weak Hadiths). And if there is no room, I summarize the explanation of the rank, as I did in *Sahih al-Jami'* and *Da'if al-Jami'*. These matters are hardly foreseen by scholars, let alone students of knowledge, let alone those below them. Therefore, I advise our brothers, all students of knowledge, whatever their affiliations and parties—may Allah pardon us and them—to be cautious in their criticism and to ask themselves. As I received criticism from some brothers in some of the nights we spent abroad, where, for example, one criticizes me regarding the hadith about taking an omen, meaning "And there is none of us but who will be afflicted by it, then Allah removes it by reliance ." So he wrote to me about a page, saying: You made a mistake when you mentioned "And there is none of us." This is not from the hadith, but rather this is an insertion, according to what he transmitted only. I said to him: This is a sin. There is no one among us but who makes a mistake. When I returned to the hadith in the *Silsilah* that I intended, and I had pointed to the words of the one who is confronting me, saying that this phrase is an insertion, how did you verify it? And then I find in the *Sahihah* that I pointed to the insertion and quoted the words of some of the Imams from whom he quoted this inserted addition. But I adopt the opinion of other scholars that this is an insertion because it came in the body of the text. This is an example from the examples of ... some of our brothers with denial, as if the intention is merely denial and not scientific research. In summary, I may verify a hadith, but a defect may become apparent to me later, and the defects are many in this science. For example, there may be a hidden *mursal* (report missing the Companion link), and hidden *mursal* is among the defects for which some scholars say that knowing the defects of hadith in terms of *mursal* is the most precise type of the science of hadith. Who knows this field and its importance, and that it may be hidden from the greatest of scholars? Only the one who has practiced the matter himself knows that. In summary, this question that I heard now is not a new matter. We receive many letters and discussions, and the answer in brief is that the one who criticizes with this criticism, I do not think he is among the scholars of knowledge. And if I have a good opinion of him, he is one of our young, enthusiastic Muslims. Then he launches into criticism without awareness. This is if he is among those filled with enmity and hatred whom we have been afflicted with in some lands. And we ask Allah Mighty and Majestic to rectify our souls and purify our hearts from resentment, hatred, and envy, and to unite us upon the Book of Allah and the guidance of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).