How did the Hafiz reconcile in al-Taqrib, in the fifth rank of the ranks of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, between descriptions where some of them are agreed upon by you to weaken the narrator possessing that description, such as "poor in memory," while others, whose possessor is "good" and used for corroboration, such as "truthful but makes mistakes," and others? Is there not evidence that the default for them is for corroboration and supporting chains, unless something appears indicating their elevation, in which case we elevate them?

The questioner : My Shaykh, regarding the issue of the fifth rank of the ranks of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil in the book al-Taqrib by the Hafiz Ibn Hajar, which is the rank of "truthful but makes mistakes," "truthful with errors," "truthful but poor in memory," "changed in his old age," and "has munkar narrations."

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : This rank, my Shaykh, is in reality, as you have taught us, that when there is some difference within a rank, it reverts to what is stronger and more compelling in the researcher's mind and opinion. He may elevate it or lower it according to his specific study of each hadith.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : But if we look at this rank and how the Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself, who is the one who established this rank, divided it, and introduced it into the scale of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, we see that in many places he explicitly states that the terms of this rank are not terms of reliance (istidlal) but rather terms of corroboration (istishhad). For example, he mentioned this in his book Hady al-Sari, where he is speaking about, meaning defending, the narrators who were criticized in the two Sahihs. He said, meaning, these narrators who were criticized due to error are of two types: those with much error and those with little error. The much error is what al-Bukhari extracts in corroboration and supporting chains, and the little error is like saying "truthful with errors," "has munkar narrations," and "poor in memory." This is also extracted for him in corroboration and supporting chains, even if it is more than the first category. Such a place indicates that he explicitly states that these terms are not used by al-Bukhari for reliance except in corroboration and supporting chains. This indicates to us that al-Bukhari's practice in this place is to corroborate with those who are in this state described by the Hafiz later with this statement he formulated. I want to mention what is in my mind regarding the Hafiz's words on this issue and hear your answer, may Allah preserve you. The Hafiz Ibn Hajar in this biography combined several terms, including the one agreed upon by scholars today regarding not relying on it, which is "poor in memory." And there are other terms in the same rank: "truthful but makes mistakes" and "has errors."

The Shaykh : Pardon me, did you say it is agreed upon or that there is consensus on not relying on the one described as "poor in memory"?

The questioner : "Poor in memory" is, in the view agreed upon by you and the Shaykhs present in our time, a type of hadith where they do not rely on the one described as "poor in memory." So here, how, if we say this is a rank of reliance, does the Hafiz Ibn Hajar reconcile several terms, some of which we have agreed not to rely on, namely "poor in memory," and others where we differ on relying on, namely "makes mistakes and errs" and "has munkar narrations"? The fact that he included these terms and added to them a term on which there is consensus that it is not a rank of reliance—why is not the entire class and the entire rank of this type? It is not reasonable that the Hafiz Ibn Hajar says the fifth rank, and the fifth rank has two rulings: some of its terms are used for corroboration and some for reliance. This is another proof or another indication that appears to me. A third matter: when the Hafiz Ibn Hajar also spoke in Hady al-Sari about Isma'il ibn Abi Uwais, the Shaykh of al-Bukhari, and he was defending al-Bukhari in extracting his hadith, he said that al-Bukhari extracted from him because he extracted from his books. He taught him what is correct from him and what is not. Al-Bukhari selected from them and chose from them. So if Isma'il ibn Abi Uwais is inside the Sahih and relied upon, and outside the Sahih not relied upon except if supported, and with this word, we look at his statement in al-Taqrib. We see him saying "truthful with weakness in his memory" or "criticized regarding his memory," meaning slight weakness in the expression, meaning slight weakening or slight criticism. So, my Shaykh, when we look at such issues, the arrangement of the ranks and their placement in a rank after "truthful" and "truthful" is "good" by our agreement, and he lowered this rank from the rank of "truthful," this lowering is not in vain but for a meaning. If we lower from "truthful," it is nothing but the degrees of corroboration and supporting chains. Then his statement in Hady al-Sari, or his statement on some biographies, or his inclusion of a term that is agreed upon to be a rank of corroboration and supporting chains—does not all this, my Shaykh, indicate that the default for this rank is that the one described with these terms is used for corroboration, unless something appears indicating his elevation, in which case we elevate him, or otherwise we leave him on the default?

The Shaykh : What is turning in my mind is that it is not possible to classify narrators with such precision that these questions arise in such different expressions. How did he place them in a specific rank, the fifth rank? You know, for example, that the authentic hadith, the authentic one, is not the good one; they are ranks. And the narrators who narrate these hadiths are of different ranks, yet they were placed in one rank.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Nevertheless, we may say, we may say, that for some of them their hadith is authentic, and for some of them it is very authentic, like this variation present in the first rank. And yet there are varying degrees of authenticity. Similarly, we lower from the rank of the authentic hadith to the rank of the good hadith in itself. Also, this good hadith in itself, we may feel that there is some variation in some of its narrators compared to others. If this and that is digested and accepted in the first or second rank, then the third and fourth, for example, the matter may be the same in the fifth rank.

The questioner : But, my Shaykh, is it as you have graciously stated that one rank gathers varying terms?
The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : But despite their variation, their ruling is one, and it is higher than the one below it and above the one above it, and higher than the one below it and lower than the one above it. But their ruling is one. We know that the "thiqah" (trustworthy) has an authentic hadith, and the "thiqah" has an authentic hadith, and the most trustworthy of people has an authentic hadith. But we need those ranks when weighing and reconciling conflicting evidence.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : But did we say in this rank that one's hadith is authentic and another's is good? Are they all authentic, my Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Similarly, when we came to the rank of "good," al-San'ani, may Allah have mercy on him, also mentioned that "la basa bihi" (there is no harm in him) differs from "laysa bihi basa" (there is no harm in him). "La basa bihi" is stronger because "la" is deeper in negation than "laysa." We know that one rank, yes, it includes varying terms, but it is also close and similar.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : But is it possible for one rank to have some terms of reliance and some terms of corroboration? This is the problem for me, may Allah preserve you.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : "Truthful who errs" is for reliance, and "truthful poor in memory" is for corroboration. If it were said, for example, that all of them are suitable for corroboration and supporting chains, and "errs" is less than "has errors," and "has munkar narrations" is less than "poor in memory," it might be said that this is the case. But all of them are covered by one ruling, which is corroboration and supporting chains.

The Shaykh : This one ruling is not one ruling. This one ruling is not one ruling. Perhaps you remember in some takhrij (tracing of hadiths) they say this hadith is close to "good."

The questioner : Yes, and it may be possible to grade it as "good."

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So not everyone in this rank can be said to have this statement applied to them correctly.The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : If we return to the same detail we mentioned in the authentic and the good, that each of the two sections has ranks, it is also said regarding those placed in the fifth rank that they are not of one degree. So not everyone described as "fifth rank" can we say that his hadith is close to "good" or of the rank of "good." Here, now, here, it differs. I do not say it is the ijtihad (independent reasoning) of whoever looks at the Hafiz's own statement, but he himself differs in it.

The questioner : The Hafiz himself.

The Shaykh : The Hafiz himself.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Here it is fitting for us to mention al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi’s statement regarding the hasan hadith, and perhaps you are more familiar with it than I am.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : And from this comes the subject of your question about this rank and how one is included in it when it is said of him such and such, because the researcher himself, the same Hafiz, is unsettled in his opinion. So, in my belief, this is the reason, and Allah knows best.The questioner : Well, I will mention to you a statement from our Shaykh regarding this issue, concerning your last point, which is referring to the practice of the Hafiz himself with some of the narrators whom he judged to be among those of whom it is said they are truthful (siddiq). You mentioned that we saw that al-Hafiz al-‘Asqalani, in such cases, grades them as hasan, so his practice revealed to us his phrasing.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Yes, I have come across this statement, both in writing and in audio.

The Shaykh : Good.

The questioner : In writing and in audio, but here, the question is: is his practice in this consistent? I have also come across some of his statements where he weakens Ibn ‘Aqil and explicitly states that he is not to be relied upon for evidence, specifically ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Aqil.

The Shaykh : And he grades his hadith as hasan.

The questioner : And in some places he grades it as hasan. So, for example, and others, his practice, O Shaykh, in this is not consistent enough for us to say that his practice explains the disagreement and is decisive for the issue.

The Shaykh : I think if you recall a previous session when we mentioned Abu Hatim’s statement "he is not to be relied upon for evidence," we interpreted it to mean he is not to be relied upon for evidence in the rank of sahih, but he is to be relied upon for evidence in the rank of hasan.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : If al-Hafiz ibn Hajar uses this phrase in a certain place regarding Ibn ‘Aqil, in my opinion—and I do not have an example in my mind, though you may have one—I imagine he does not say this statement, "he is not to be relied upon for evidence," unless it appears to him that there is something in this specific hadith of Ibn ‘Aqil, this specific hadith, and otherwise the default is that his hadith is hasan.The questioner : Yes, this is common in his speech, but this was in a specific place, even in the context of the speech and the hadith, it was in the context of the Nukhbat. May Allah preserve you, in the Nukhbat, this is found in the first part, page 438. I will read you the text.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : He said here: "And our Shaykh indicated in the twenty-third type something of this."

The Shaykh : I mean al-Iraqi.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : And from this appears the weakness of the method of one who relies on everything about which Abu Dawud was silent, for he narrates hadiths from a group of weak narrators for the purpose of evidence and is silent about them, such as Ibn Lahi‘ah, Salih the freed slave of al-Taw’amah, ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Aqil, Musa ibn Wardan, Salama ibn al-Fadl, Dunham ibn Salih, and others.

The Shaykh : The one who gave these examples is al-Iraqi.

The questioner : No, the Hafiz does not remain silent about them. Like the Hafiz, he responds to his Shaykh, saying: "And our Shaykh indicated in the twenty-third type something of this." And from this, the Hafiz’s statement here, and from this appears the weakness of the method of some who rely on everything about which Abu Dawud was silent.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : For he narrates hadiths from a group of weak narrators for the purpose of evidence and is silent about them, such as, and he began to give examples when he said: "such as Ibn Lahi‘ah, Salih the freed slave of al-Taw’amah, ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Aqil, Musa ibn Wardan, Salama ibn al-Fadl, Dunham ibn Salih, and others." So it is not permissible for the critic to imitate him in being silent about any of them and to follow him in relying on them for evidence. Rather, his path is to look at whether that hadith has a supporting chain (mutaba‘ah) by which it is strengthened, or if it is strange (gharib), in which case he should suspend judgment on it.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : Then he mentioned, and added after that, saying: "Especially if it is contradictory, especially if it is contradictory to the narration of one who is more truthful than him, for then it descends to the category of munkar (denounced)." And he narrates from those who are much weaker than these, like al-Harith, to the end of his statement. Here is his statement, and he gave ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Aqil as an example, and in many places he grades his hadith as hasan in the Takhrij. Likewise, Musa ibn Wardan, O Shaykh, you grade his hadith as hasan.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : Because he is a subject of disagreement, and you said that the status of the hasan hadith is that it is a subject of disagreement.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : So here the Hafiz says: "It is not permissible for the critic to imitate him in being silent about their hadiths and to follow him in relying on them for evidence. Rather, his path is to look at whether that hadith has a supporting chain by which it is strengthened, or if it is strange, in which case he should suspend judgment on it." Then he said: "If it is contradictory, it becomes munkar, of the category of munkar."

The Shaykh : Good, now we return to the second question.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What did the Hafiz say about Ibn ‘Aqil in al-Taqrib?

The questioner : Truthful in his memory, or he makes mistakes when narrating from his memory.

The Shaykh : Does this statement of his make his hadith weak or hasan, as you know?

The questioner : As far as I know, I weaken his hadith with this until something appears that strengthens it.

The Shaykh : No, I do not mean what I do and what you do.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What does al-Hafiz ibn Hajar mean by this phrase? Does it imply grading as hasan or weakening the hadith of this narrator with this phrase?

The questioner : What appears to me is weakening and softening, not grading as hasan.

The Shaykh : Well, in which rank did he place him?

The questioner : He means he did not mention it in the fifth category, which is what we are discussing now.

The Shaykh : So he is not in the fifth.

Another questioner : The fourth.

The Shaykh : He is in the fourth, that is it.

The questioner : The class, O Shaykh, you mean the class.

The Shaykh : Not in the class, but in the rank.

The questioner : Let me read, O Shaykh, may Allah bless you. It says: "Truthful in his hadith, soft, and it is said he changed in his later years. In the fourth, he died after forty."

The Shaykh : No, no, the fourth rank is not our concern, O Professor.

The questioner : It says: "Truthful in his memory, soft, and it is said he changed in his later years."

The Shaykh : Well, the rank before that.

The questioner : The rank before that is: "Truthful, and there is no harm in him."

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : In the rank before the fifth, which we disagree on, from the fourth in al-Taqrib: "Truthful, and there is no harm in him," and "there is no harm in him."

The Shaykh : This one.

The questioner : The fourth.

The Shaykh : The fourth.

The questioner : The first is the Companions, the second is the most trustworthy of people, the third is thiqah (trustworthy), the fourth is truthful and there is no harm in him, the fifth is the subject of discussion now, O Abu al-Hasan. I have come across the ranks. Read the ranks to our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, we must return to what we said earlier, that the single rank contains something of overlap.

The questioner : And variation.

The Shaykh : Yes, and what confirms that is that al-Hafiz ibn Hajar grades Ibn ‘Aqil’s hadith as hasan.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So if he did not grade it as hasan, and in my belief he did not overlook the meaning I alluded to earlier, and if he weakened it, he notes that the default is that it contradicts the trustworthy narrators, and as he said here, he objected to those who rely on Abu Dawud’s silence. Yes, and as I quoted from him, he said in some hadiths: "he is not to be relied upon for evidence."

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : The issue returns to the fact that the hasan hadith is, as I hinted earlier, regarding al-Dhahabi’s statement, truly confusing. The hasan hadith is a branch of the confusion the researcher finds in the narrator of the hasan hadith. So if we note this reality regarding the narrator and the one who grades his hadith as hasan, we can say that this fourth rank.

The questioner : The fifth.

The Shaykh : No, the fourth, regarding Ibn ‘Aqil, he is not mentioned in the fourth.

The questioner : No, O Shaykh, the fourth in the class, O Shaykh, in the class of narrators.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Yes, but his phrases are similar to the phrases of the fifth.

The Shaykh : The fifth.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : It means it is mixed, allowing the conclusion that he is to be relied upon for evidence in the rank of hasan sometimes.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And that he is not to be relied upon for evidence, but rather he is in the rank of weak sometimes. This is the meaning we touched upon, touched with the hand. Then the reality is, when I found al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi’s statement in al-Muqaddimah, I found in it the relief and the way out of this thing we were feeling, that the person is unsettled. He says the same person’s opinion differs sometimes regarding the hasan hadith of the narrator of the hasan hadith, due to the disagreement existing among the scholars of hadith regarding this type of narrators.

The questioner : The conclusion, O Shaykh, is that this rank is confusing.

The Shaykh : Confusing.

The questioner : Truly confusing, and the circumstances play a big role, yes.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: O Shaykh, may Allah preserve you, in al-Mizan, al-Dhahabi explicitly said: "I said: his hadith is in the rank of hasan."

The Shaykh : Also, this is it.