If a researcher encounters a hadith in which one of the early imams has spoken regarding its authenticity or weakness, should he stop there, or should he rule based on what appears to him according to the rules of the people of hadith?

The questioner : Another question: If one of the early imams authenticates or weakens a hadith, for example, by saying it is a denounced narration without specifying the chain or such, and a researcher in this era sees that the hadith is authentic, or that its apparent state is validity, and finds no defect apparent to him in it, or finds supporting chains for it, should he stop at the statement of the early scholar, or should he rule based on what appears to him from other routes or the apparent chain? I mean, regarding the matter of authenticating and weakening?

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that the second matter is obligatory for a strong student of knowledge, and the statement of a senior Hafiz in hadith that a narration is denounced (munkar) is not to be equated with that, except in one case: when he mentions the chain of narration and the defect ('illah). If he merely denies the text or the hadith, and then some later researcher who traces the chain finds it authentic, or at least good, especially if he finds corroborating narrations and supporting chains, then he must hold to his own opinion and independent reasoning, subject to the condition I mentioned earlier, which is that he must be a strong student of knowledge. I repeat this warning because I see many students of hadith who are attached to this science, but who are new to it and have not yet mastered it. As I recently saw, the Hafiz al-Dhahabi used an expression that corresponds to the saying "he defecates before he is circumcised." The Hafiz used an expression that is perhaps gentler: "he wants to fly before he has feathers." I have found many beginners in this science denying authentic hadiths simply because a scholar said the correct ruling is that it is a mursal report, or that it is denounced, or something similar. Yet they may have overlooked the chains that take the hadith out of the category of being denounced, and these chains, or at least some of them, may elevate it to the rank of authentic hadiths. I take this opportunity to give you an example and to lead you to recognize a student of knowledge among you. I memorized his kunyah but not his name; it is Abu 'Aziz. He came to me throughThe Shaykh : Abu Malik (may Allah preserve him), with a sealed envelope, of course, containing a letter in handwriting. The handwriting is actually very beautiful, but it does not appear to be the author's own. I had hoped to find in this book a benefit to correct an error of mine, and I have many errors. As a person expands in research and knowledge, his errors become more apparent, as is well known among those concerned with the sciences, whether hadith, fiqh, or otherwise. Unfortunately, I did not find a single one where he was correct. The matter reached the point where he weakened the hadith of the opening supplication which came from five of the Companions. He attacks the method of some of the people of desires (ahwa') here in the Levant, in Jordan. In any case, we are in the Levant as well, so we have not left the Levant, but we have moved from Damascus to Amman. The point is that I did not find him correct; rather, he made a grave error. He listed five chains for this hadith and refuted them one by one. Then, here is the source of wonder: the ignorance that dominates some of the youth, unfortunately, is that he cited the hadith of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab that he used to open his prayer with "Subhanaka Allahumma" and raise his voice to teach the people, even though he was aware of this. He weakened the hadith, even though if there were nothing in this field or this research but this hadith of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, which he announced publicly in a place where the Sunnah is to lower the voice, and he raised his voice to teach the people behind him that this is from the Sunnah, "Subhanaka Allahumma" and so on, I would be amazed at him. You have weakened the isolated narrations and did not care about the rule of strengthening a hadith by the multiplicity of its chains, with the known condition that their weakness not be severe. You have weakened these isolated narrations, so what about not strengthening their weakness with this corroborating narration which is in Sahih Muslim and other than Sahih Muslim, and which was authenticated by the Imam
al-Daraqutni. The point is that he relies on the 'Ullal of Ibn Abi Hatim and says, "Abu Hatim said such and such," and does not resort to scientific research, which is what you are now circling around in your question. The question was: if some of the senior Hafizin said of a hadith that it is denounced, and the researcher today finds a strong chain for it and finds corroborating narrations and supporting chains, what is his position? His position is to begin with what he has reached in his knowledge, unless that Hafiz presented his evidence for denying that hadith. In that case, it is said, "for every new event, a new response."

The questioner : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : And may He reward you.