Ali Hasan’s remarks on some issues of terminology (severe weakness, anomaly, authentication……).

The questioner : A second hadith: if it contains a collection of defects, such as disconnection and others, is it severely weak, or is it merely weak?
Al-Halabi : Severe weakness arises only from accusation, lying, fabrication, or something similar. As for the mere convergence of defects, meaning that they are not in themselves severe weakness, their convergence does not result in severe weakness. And Allah the Exalted knows best. Please, go ahead.

The questioner : Regarding those engaged in the science of hadith, some have authenticated hadiths that others deemed weak. For example, regarding the anomalous hadith and the addition by a trustworthy narrator, we need a criterion for the anomalous hadith and the addition by a trustworthy narrator, as well as for the issue of the mujtahid’s ijtihad.
Al-Halabi : The truth is that the issue of anomaly and the addition by a trustworthy narrator is among the very precise matters. I do not wish to say there is no criterion for it, but its criterion is extremely difficult. It is among the most precise types of the science of defects. The science of defects itself is among the most precise types, so this is among the most precise types of the science of defects. What brings me comfort in this is that mere singularity is not contradiction. Otherwise, if we did that, we would judge—and this is from the success of Allah Mighty and Majestic in these two examples—we would judge the first hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari and the last hadith to be weak. Because the first hadith and the last hadith are both hadiths in which the Companion was singular, and the Tabi'i was singular from the Companion, and the Tabi' al-Tabi'in was singular from the Tabi'i. At that point, we ask: what is the criterion? Indeed, in the first hadith, which is , Imam Ahmad said about Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Taymi that it is a denounced narration. What do you say? I mean, what do they say? If this is a point, let us stand at the same hadith, "Actions are but by intentions," which al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih in seven places. Did he narrate it in the seven places with the same wording? No. Why did he or any other scholar of knowledge not judge the wordings that contradicted the main narration as anomalous? I mentioned the issue is verbal, so did they consider the meaning in judging contradiction? Yes, considering the meaning in judging contradiction may not be required; rather, one looks at singularity, but only in one whose singularity is not acceptable, in one where it falls upon the hadith scholar’s heart that this narrator does not accept such a text and addition. The issue requires more detail, but this is the summary of what I see. And Allah knows best. Please, yes.

The questioner : Do you have a book?
Al-Halabi : By Allah, I have a book for years, in fact, but I am gathering for it, meaning multiple theoretical issues. And I do not base a methodology on one or two examples, as "al-Milbari" did in his book "The Balance Between the Methodology of the Early and Later Scholars." He built a methodology on two examples, and both examples he mentioned are refuted by his own words, which he quoted with his right hand. Is this a scientific methodology building? And he divided the Ummah into two groups based on two hadiths. There is no power or strength except in Allah. Yes.

The questioner : Some contemporary scholars engaged in hadith adopt a view of neither authentication nor weakening, taking Ibn al-Salah’s statement on the issue of authentication and weakening, and also relying on the statement of Imam al-Dhahabi. In his book, he implies, saying, may Allah have mercy on him, "And in our time, it is difficult for the hadith scholar to critique this, for these Imams like al-Bukhari, Abu Hatim, and Abu Dawud saw the original sources and knew their defects. As for us, the chains of narration have become long for us, and the certain expressions have been lost. And through this and similar things, the intrusion occurred for al-Hakim in his handling of al-Mustadrak." We want our Shaykh to speak about this.
Al-Halabi : I know well that the statement of Ibn al-Salah and after him the statement of Imam al-Dhahabi is only about the difficulty of the issue, not about closing the door on it. So now, what did al-Dhahabi say? He said it is difficult. And what did Ibn al-Salah say? He said it is impossible. So this issue is correct, without doubt and without ambiguity, that impossibility exists and difficulty exists, so that one who is not qualified does not enter this door, and so that one who is below the level does not encroach upon it. Therefore, the matter is not open to everyone, nor is it closed to everyone. Rather, it is open to one who is qualified for it, with a Shari'ah condition and its Shari'ah rule. This is it. Therefore, the statement of Ibn al-Salah does not apply to us at all, let alone the statement of al-Dhahabi following him. Their statement is about difficulty and impossibility, and this is a matter we agree with. So whoever understood from the statement of Imam Ibn al-Salah that he closed the door is mistaken, even though this is the famous view among many who write on terminology and speak about it and the like. And Allah the Exalted knows best. Yes.

The questioner : There is a doubt they raise, for example, if a hadith is authenticated by some contemporary scholars and none of the predecessors explicitly stated its authentication, then it is more likely that there is a hidden defect that this person did not encounter.
Al-Halabi : I ask a question of these two groups who live by theory only and do not live by practice: how many hadiths did the predecessors authenticate? I do not say many; I say few. Meaning, now, excluding al-Bukhari and Muslim, look at the hadiths authenticated by Ibn al-Madini, or Abu Zur'ah, or Abu Hatim, or Ibn Ma'in, or the like. They are limited and very limited. If you gathered them, in my view, they would not be one-tenth of the narrations that exist, whether weakened or authenticated. So these people have judged the history of the Sunnah over twelve centuries by closing it. If we see a hadith that the predecessors did not authenticate and did not weaken, and they narrated it in their books, what do we do? What will they answer? They will contradict themselves. If they say we will speak about it, they will contradict themselves. If they say we will remain silent about it, they will contradict themselves. So this contemporary innovation, in which some people live and tamper, of distinguishing between what is called the predecessors and the later scholars—this reality, I once said a word and wrote it in my handwriting in some places: these are the fruit of their statement, even if it was not their intention. The fruit of their statement is an act that the Jews could not do to the Islamic Ummah. Why? Because it is a copying of the history of ten centuries or more of the history of the Prophetic Sunnah. And consequently, to reconsider the Sunnah according to what they want and see from the distinction between the predecessors and the later scholars, I do not say we need ten centuries, but we need a hundred centuries. Because the scholars who spoke about the Sunnah over the past ten centuries are not like us today, nor like those after us. One of them is equal to ten of us, if not more. And consequently, these people spent ten centuries and could not encompass the entire Sunnah in judgment, explanation, critique, and control. So how about those after them who are below them? So the Ummah must be suspended for another hundred centuries, or ninety, or eighty, or rather say ten times that, until we can judge about the hadiths. And consequently, now look at your prayer, look at your fasting. Many of the hadiths and rulings from the authentications of the later scholars of knowledge do not contain the statement of al-Bukhari, or Muslim, or Abu Hatim, or Abu Zur'ah, or Ali al-Madini, or Ibn Ma'in, or Ahmad, or the like of those. And where is the dividing line between the predecessors and the later scholars? And if there was a Shaykh whose death was early and a student whose death was late, which of them is considered the predecessor and which the later? Contradictions upon contradictions, and I seek refuge in Allah the Exalted. If they had reflected, they would have known that, but unfortunately they did not. And perhaps they will. Yes.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, one of the strange contradictions of theirs is that they say we judge the chain of narration as authentic, not the hadith, and they obligate acting upon this. Do you not see this as a contradiction?

The Shaykh : This is undoubtedly a contradiction. And this contradiction of theirs, why did they accept it for themselves and not accept it for their scholars? If they say, "We make it difficult and close the hadith that we authenticated and did not find a statement from the predecessors about, so we pause in it," then they act and contradict and negate. Yes, please.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Of course, this is a statement that may be said, or rather, I say it has been said, and not everything that is said is correct, let alone that everything said is free from critique and fault. And this statement is from several angles. As for the first matter, one of the rules of the scholars of knowledge is "that the necessary consequence of a madhhab is not necessarily binding." Now, Your Eminence,The Shaykh : Abdul Aziz ibn Baz, in his commentary on Fath al-Bari, the first three volumes, did he exhaust every error in which Ibn Hajar fell, such that if we find a weak hadith about which Ibn Hajar was silent, we say this hadith was authenticated by Ibn Baz, becauseThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz did not comment on it, or for example on other issues. No one would say this, so Abdullah al-Duwaysh came and pointed out other errors that Ibn Hajar committed, which had not been noted.The Shaykh : Abdullah al-Duwaysh came and pointed out other errors that Ibn Hajar committed, which had not been noted.The Shaykh : Ibn Baz, what is the correct position now? Do we say...The Shaykh : Ibn Baz, did he agree with Ibn Hajar in this scientific, creedal, or methodological error, or do we say that the principle is that we know...The Shaykh : Ibn Baz, that he does not fall into such things. We must ask him and not take the necessary implication of the madhhab, for the necessary implication of the madhhab is not a madhhab, or is not a necessary implication. This is what should have been said. Therefore, in my book "A Cry of Warning," I clarified this issue well and established that disbelief is divided into five categories. But there is another issue: there is a difference between the categories of disbelief and the types of declaring someone a disbeliever. So we saw in the words of Ibn al-Qayyim in *Miftah Dar al-Sa'adah*, and in the words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and the words of Shaykh Abd al-Rahman ibn Nasir al-Sa'di, and likewise when they mentioned that disbelief is denial and refutation, what did they mean by it? They meant, for the most part, what a Muslim is declared a disbeliever for. Pay attention, there is a difference between original disbelief—disbelief of hypocrisy is original, disbelief of turning away is original, disbelief of doubt is original—and subsequent disbelief, such as disbelief of denial. A person is a Muslim, then he does not deny; he is a believer, then he denies; he is a verifier, then he refutes. But does this majority negate that a type of hypocrisy, turning away, or doubt may occur afterwards? It does not negate it. So the ruling is based on the majority and is not exhaustive. If you had considered this issue, what happened would not have happened. So, as I said, or as I clarified in my book *A Cry of Warning*, two years before the committee's decision, two years before the committee's decision, and for that reason, when I saw that some people might understand, or might conceive in their minds, this necessity and obligation by what is not obligatory, I wrote two clarifications. The first clarification was in support of the letter. The second clarification was because some people understood that my clarification was a retraction. So I say: what am I retracting? Am I retracting what I originally said? That does not happen. So I wrote another clarification, and we can show you a copy of it, as we have a copy here. The issue is clearer than it needs to be mentioned, praise be to Allah. And now I have a book, we ask Allah to help us with it, titled "The Texts of the Scholars and Imams on the Issue of..."