What is the ruling on a narrator of unknown status if a group of trustworthy narrators have narrated from him?

The questioner : I do not know regarding the narrator of unknown status if a group of trustworthy narrators have narrated from him; I do not know if the matter remains as you have it, or if something new has come to light regarding it.

The Shaykh : It is as I have it in what has settled with you; what is it that you mean?

The questioner : What I know is that if a narrator of unknown identity has been narrated from by a group of trustworthy narrators and Ibn Hbban mentioned him among his trustworthy narrators, then his hadith is considered good; his hadith is considered good.

The Shaykh : And I remain on this position.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : And the truth is, I used to interpret this, and I had not heard it from you; I interpreted this to mean that Ibn Hbban’s inclusion of him among the trustworthy narrators negates the possibility that this narrator has narrated a denounced hadith, so it is valid to apply the rule of al-Dhahabi and al-Bazzar that whoever has not narrated from a trustworthy narrator and has not come with a denounced text, his hadith is authentic according to the majority. I used to interpret it this way for someone with whom I would study. I do not know if this interpretation is your evidence and proof, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : And I mention this: why do we say that the hadith of the unknown narrator from whom a group of trustworthy narrators have narrated and who has been authenticated, even if the authenticator was lenient in authentication like Ibn Hbban, is good? Because the narration of these trustworthy narrators from him and the absence of any denounced narration from him, in addition to the authentication of this authenticator, also achieves reassurance in the heart of the researcher that his hadith is sound, acceptable, and not in the terminology of al-Iskandarani.

The questioner : Yes, because it appears that al-Hafiz meant that this rule should not be attributed to the majority. What is your opinion, O Shaykh? Al-Dhahabi attributed it to the majority, and al-Hafiz opposed him in *al-Lisan*. I do not know what your opinion is on this. The intended meaning, O Shaykh, is that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, and then al-Sakhawi in *Fath al-Mughith*, when mentioning al-Dhahabi’s statement, commented on it by saying that al-Bazzar or Ibn Hbban did not explicitly state this, he said. So their intended meaning is that when al-Dhahabi said that this is the view of the majority, that was not the case; rather, the one who explicitly stated this was al-Bazzar or Ibn Hbban...

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : So I do not know what your opinion is: is al-Dhahabi’s statement correct that this is the view of the majority of the early scholars, or is this the view of those among them who are lenient?

The Shaykh : By Allah, I do not have a recollection of the answer to this question right now, but can you summarize the words of al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi? Because I think I have an answer, but I fear that your question is not this.

The questioner : Yes, it is al-Dhahabi’s statement. He says, "The majority are of the opinion that if a master has been narrated from by a group and has not come with a denounced hadith or a denounced text, his hadith is authentic." The majority are of the opinion that if a master has been narrated from by a group and has not come with a denounced hadith, his hadith is authentic.

The Shaykh : I understand now.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : I understand al-Dhahabi’s phrase.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : It is not transmitted from the majority as a statement.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Rather, it means that their practice has proceeded in accordance with it.

The questioner : Well done, well done.

The Shaykh : And this is correct.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And it is what was circulating in my mind that you meant.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And it was in my mind to say that we find al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in dozens of biographies in *al-Tahdhib*, having this, if not hundreds, and it occurs to me that if there were a student of knowledge who is dedicated to tracing the narrators about whom al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said "trustworthy" or a similar term in terminology, he would find among them dozens of biographies in *al-Tahdhib* where he did not authenticate them except Ibn Hbban.

The questioner : Authentic

The Shaykh : Nevertheless, Ibn Hajar says "trustworthy, trustworthy, trustworthy," and so on. So he applies the rule he transmitted from al-Dhahabi and criticized it, and there is no disagreement between al-Dhahabi and al-Iskandarani in practical terms. And when al-Dhahabi said what he said, it does not mean that it was explicitly stated by some of the predecessors that he explained and adopted, but rather the practical custom that the scholars followed is what al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi expressed in that phrase. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself followed his path in dozens of biographies to which the statement of al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi applies, and al-Iskandarani also agreed with him in these dozens, if not hundreds. Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi himself fell into the same problem as al-Hafiz al-Iskandarani, meaning they did not adhere to this methodology, both of them. So I find al-Dhahabi in his book *al-Kashif*, in particular, authenticating many whom only Ibn Hbban authenticated, and in most cases the narrators from this authenticated person are many, as I mentioned earlier regarding al-Hafiz al-Iskandarani. But it is predominant for him to say "trustworthy," but both of them, in other biographies, did not adhere to this line. This means that the issue is a matter of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) and there is no fixed rule that can be applied universally.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : This is also my answer to what you asked.

The questioner : ... May Allah keep you.
Abu Layla : Please, my brother Mus'ad, so that not