What is the importance of indications and corroborating evidence in judging hadiths?

Another questioner : Sometimes, may Allah preserve you, in these blessed days in which we have been sitting with you, and questions regarding terminology have come up, you have repeated the issue of indications and what arises in the mind many times. Also, sometimes I say, Shaykh, regarding this issue, a phrase that I want you to correct for me. I say: When some people come and make corrections, for example, to you, or correct something to you, I say: The science of hadith is not mathematics.

The Shaykh : That is correct.

Another questioner : Because many people think that one plus one equals two, not knowing that the issue involves indications and corroborating evidence, and something that arises in the mind of a scholar like you, and so on.

The Shaykh : No doubt they do not know that.

Another questioner: Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : They think the science of hadith is a static science.

Another questioner: Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : Routine, as they say today.

Another questioner: Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : No, and the Shaykh of al-Bukhari, 'Ali ibn al-Madini, pointed to this when he was asked: How do you distinguish a hadith? Do you know this phrase from *al-Ba'th al-Hathith*?

Another questioner: Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : How do you distinguish an authentic hadith from a weak one, just as a money changer distinguishes?Another questioner : A money changer.

The Shaykh : A money changer.

Another questioner: Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : Yes, so here are things not written down in... Yes.

Another questioner: Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The place our brother Abu al-Harith asked about, may Allah reward him with good, is here in volume four hundred and twenty-six. And in four hundred, may Allah preserve you, you mentioned in *al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah* the hadith of two hundred and sixty-five. You said: And among the narrators is one who is known by the kunya Abu Sinan, from the men of *al-Tahdhib* and *Lisan al-Mizan*. There is no Medinan among them except Yazid ibn Umayyah, Abu Sinan. You wrote: Abu Sinan, the Dauli, the Medinan, narrated from 'Ali, Ibn 'Abbas, and Abu Waqid al-Laythi, and he is trustworthy. If it is him, then the chain is authentic except for Muhammad ibn Ma'adh.Al-Halabi : For I did not find a biography for him, but he is one of al-Tabarani's shaykhs from whom he narrates frequently. He narrated for him in *al-Mu'jam al-Awsat* about twenty hadiths from several of his shaykhs, one of which is in *al-Mu'jam al-Saghir* with number such-and-such in *al-Rawd al-Nazir*, and Allah knows best.

The Shaykh : Okay, in this, what is the addition? Meaning, he narrated more hadiths than the first one? Okay, others.

The questioner : Others as well, likewise. Al-Bayhaqi narrates a lot from Abu Nasr ibn Qatadah, or Qatadah ibn Abu Nasr, or Nasr ibn Abu Qatadah. He narrates a lot from this one.The Shaykh : Even though I have not come across a biography for him, is it possible to apply this rule to him as well?

The Shaykh : But is he...

The questioner : He is narrated from frequently in *al-Sunan al-Kubra*, a lot.

The Shaykh : If you gather his hadiths and they are so numerous that the mind is reassured that it is al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi, meaning he trusts him, then it is so. In fact, al-Bayhaqi is more deserving of this than al-Tabarani, because he is stronger in the science of hadith and the principles of hadith.

The questioner : I know.

The Shaykh: Yes.