When is it permissible for a student of knowledge to engage in the verification and weakening of Prophetic hadiths?

The questioner : When is it permissible for a student of knowledge to engage in the verification and weakening of Prophetic hadiths, and what are the books he should read and the subjects he should become familiar with to reach this level? Are there specific conditions that must be met in him, as the predecessors established conditions for independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in Islamic jurisprudence?

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that if a student of knowledge wishes to reach, one day, the ability to authenticate and weaken hadiths—and I do not say to reach the ability to trace hadiths to their sources, for tracing hadiths is something any student can do well, no matter how shallow his culture may be—whereas authenticating and weakening hadiths is something no one can master except one who has spent a long time practicing the application of what he studied theoretically of the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators), the principles of hadith, and the rules of hadith terminology. So, one who has spent a long period of his life studying this science until he has mastered it well theoretically, and then attempts to apply it practically, truly needs many, many years. This varies, without doubt, depending on the student of knowledge in terms of his dedication to this science and his specialization in it, and in terms of his ability to turn away from what distracts him from this science. There is no doubt that among the most famous books of terminology is al-Mizan fi Naqd al-Rijal, known as Mizan al-I'tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, by the Imam al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. This is one of the best books for knowing the levels of narrators in terms of authenticity, goodness, and weakness, and it is easy for beginners in this science to study it among themselves, because it is a summary of many old books that the hands of hadith scholars in the present era did not reach, because they were still in the world of manuscripts. Now, as some of you know, at least some of the basic references of al-Dhahabi's book al-Mizan have been printed, such as al-Du'afa wa al-Matrukin by Ibn Hibban, and al-Du'afa al-Kabir by al-'Uqayli, and al-Kamil by Ibn 'Adi. Before that, Tarikh Baghdad by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi was printed. These books are the foundations of al-Dhahabi's book al-Mizan. Then there is Lisan al-Mizan by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani. If the student of knowledge practices studying these books to know the narrators of hadiths, whether these narrators are from the men of the Six Books or from the men of other than the Six Books, he will find them scattered in this book, which is Mizan al-I'tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal by al-Dhahabi. And he will find there a method by which he understands how the scholars of hadith judged that so-and-so is a denouncer of hadiths, or that he has denunced narrations, or that his hadith is good, or that his hadith is authentic and he is a trustworthy one whose testimony is accepted. This practical style in critiquing narrators is found there. And of course, it is not sufficient that merely by reading this book he knows the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil. No, he must read many, many books. For example, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani. This is a book specifically about the narrators of the Six Books and similar ones, such as al-Adab al-Mufrad by al-Bukhari, al-Tarikh by al-Bukhari, and Khasa'if al-Af'al by al-Bukhari. The narrators of these books, in addition to the Six Books, he will find their biographies in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. But he will not find the biographies of those who did not narrate for the authors of these books except in a book like al-Mizan by al-Dhahabi. And so the student of knowledge proceeds in studying these books until he develops an instinct and knowledge to distinguish what the scholars of hadith or the scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil may have differed on in terms of vindication and denunciation. He will then be able to apply the hadith principle that he reads in the science of terminology. An example of this is their saying: "Denunciation takes precedence over vindication." This is a famous phrase in this science, circulated on the tongues of the scholars. Denunciation takes precedence over vindication. But he will find that this rule is not absolute in its generality and comprehensiveness, but it is restricted by a condition, which is: Denunciation takes precedence over vindication if the reason for the denunciation is explained and clarified. In other words, if Ibn Ma'in, for example, who is one of the imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil and a contemporary of Imam Ahmad, said of a narrator that he is trustworthy, and Imam Ahmad said he is weak, or the reverse—it does not matter, the vindication is just meant for illustration. So, which of the two statements, which of these two statements, is preferred over the other? I say the one who vindicated, whether it was Ahmad or Ibn Ma'in, or the reverse. If we want to apply the mentioned rule, "Denunciation takes precedence over vindication," we prefer the statement of the one who weakened over the statement of the one who vindicated. But this is not absolute. What is the restriction? He said: If the reason is explained. One said trustworthy, and the other said weak. He did not say, for example, "weak, poor in memory," or "weak, he became confused," or something like that. If this is a weakness that can be called a denunciation without an explained reason, it is not preferred over the statement of the one who vindicated. But look now at how the sequence goes, and this is something a student of knowledge cannot reach in a few years of theoretical study, but in long, many years. And then comes the application of this study, because the application will reveal to him what may have been hidden from him in the theoretical study. We said: They said, "Denunciation takes precedence over vindication." This is first. Second, they said: This is not absolute, but the denunciation must be explained. If it is not explained, then the trustworthiness or the vindication takes precedence. They said third: It is not sufficient that the denunciation be explained. It may satisfy a person to stop at the second point. First, they said: Denunciation takes precedence over vindication. Second, they said: This is not absolute, but only if the reason for the denunciation is explained. This is also not sufficient, but the reason for the denunciation must be a denunciation in itself. It must be a denunciation in itself. And someone might say: You do not find this elaborated in the books of terminology as you hear it now, clarified and explained. Rather, this is reached through practice by the one who studies this science and applies it. For example, it was said to so-and-so, a hadith scholar: Why do you not narrate from so-and-so? He said: This one is a Murji'i. Ah, this is an explained reason for denunciation. But is it a denunciation? They said: No, sectarian disagreement is not a denunciation, because the criterion in narration is two things: First, 'adalah (integrity), meaning that he is a Muslim who is not an open sinner. And second, that he is a preserver, precise in his narration. As for the fact that so-and-so is a Murji'i, and so-and-so is a Khariji, and so-and-so is a Shi'i, and so on, these are set aside. As long as the narrator remains within the circle of Muslims, and as long as it is established that he is trustworthy, controlled, and a preserver, his hadith is authentic, and the mentioned denunciation is not a denunciation, even though it is a denunciation, but it is not a denunciation in itself. It was said to another: Why do you not narrate from so-and-so? He said: I heard the sound of an 'ud (lute) in his house. Ah, the sound of the 'ud is amusement and attending to amusements, which is open sinfulness. So is this not integrity? The answer is: No. Why? First, because amusements and musical instruments are indeed forbidden in Islam due to many hadiths. But we today can say this statement because, by the grace of Allah, due to the lateness of our time, we have looked into the statements of those who differed on this issue and their evidence, and it became stronger for us that all musical instruments are forbidden and not permissible. But the matter was not this easy in that time, where there were those who held that there is nothing wrong with musical instruments based on their independent legal reasoning. So, what was disputed in that time, it is not permissible to drop the testimony of the one who differed, because he contradicted the independent legal reasoning of others, even if he was wrong in his contradiction. This is a denunciation, but the one denounced is not considered thereby. And more precise than that is that the statement of this person, "I heard an 'ud from his house," if he himself also held that the 'ud is forbidden, it does not stand as a reason for denunciation. Why? Because this sound could have come from the house of his neighbor, not from the house of this narrator, because houses are close together, especially in that time when houses were not built high as they are in this time. And it is possible, finally, that this sound came from his house, but not from himself, but rather from a relative of his or a son of his who was disobedient to him, not obeying him and not listening to his words, so he is not responsible for him. So, with such types of denunciation, it is not suitable to be an acceptable reason. Denunciation with such a study, if the student of knowledge continues and applies the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil to the principles and practices it practically for at least about ten years, and writes for himself and does not publish to benefit others—and this is, in my observation in this time, a plague of students of knowledge: they hasten to appear as scholars in a science from which the masses of scholars have turned away throughout these many centuries, where no one emerged in the science of hadith, the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, the science of authenticating and weakening, except very, very few individuals. Why? Because of the difficulty of this science and its precision. And among its difficulties is that you judge a hadith as weak, and then after many years you find another chain for this hadith. Where? In a book you had not come across, and the books of the Sunnah are in the hundreds, and most of them are still among the manuscripts. Therefore, it was among what came in the books of hadith science in terminology—and I find that this rule is not observed. Why? Did the student of knowledge not read it? He read it. But it is like what they say in our region in Syria: "What comes in one way goes out in another". It did not settle in his conscience, in his heart, so that he is always aware of it. What is it? Al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi said: If the student of knowledge comes across a hadith whose chain is weak, he may say of this hadith: "Its chain is weak," and he should not say: "The hadith is weak." Because there is a difference between saying "Its chain is weak" and saying "The hadith is weak." Because the first applies the weakness to the chain, and you are correct. But if you say, because of the weakness of the chain, the hadith is weak, your error may become clear. Why? Because you did not come across a second chain, and this second chain may at least strengthen the first, or it may be strong in itself. So how did you weaken the hadith? But if you said "Its chain is weak," you are truthful, and you are not blamed. But if you said "This hadith is weak," you may be blamed, because you may find yourself, or someone else may come and refute you, saying: This hadith is established. And I say to you with complete frankness, with the grace of Allah Blessed and Exalted is He upon me, where I have spent more than half a century of this era in this science, even so, a beginner student of knowledge may come and correct me. How does he correct me? Because a book has now appeared that I did not reach, even though I lived among the manuscripts of the Zahiriyah Library, which contains great treasures. This is witnessed by everyone who has looked at my tracings of hadiths. But does that mean I have covered the manuscripts of the world? That is impossible. Now, some manuscripts are being printed, for example, from the Egyptian National Library. They are being printed now, and a beginner in this science comes and says: You weakened such-and-such a hadith, and this chain either strengthens that chain or is strong in itself, and so on. This happens to whom? To the one who spent half a century and more in this science. So what is the case of the beginners? There is no doubt that they must be patient and not hasten the matter, and that if... they have been given a share of memory and retention and a desire for this science, they should not hasten. And there is no harm in them writing for themselves. But merely feeling that he was able to refer to the book al-Mizan, Lisan al-Mizan, al-Tahdhib, and similar books... he says that so-and-so is in it... so-and-so. I see the errors now fully embodied, because there are some types of sciences that have precision, as I mentioned to you earlier regarding al-jarh wa al-ta'dil. And among this precision is the hasan (good) hadith. The hasan hadith. The Imam al-Naqid, the Imam al-Dhahabi, says in his treatise al-Muqaddimah: The hasan hadith is one of the most precise types of hadith sciences. The hasan hadith is one of the most precise types of hadith sciences. Why?
Because the meaning of a hadith being classified as *hasan* (good) is that it contains a narrator about whom there is disagreement, ranging from being considered trustworthy to being considered weak. The one who wants to classify a hadith as *hasan* must summarize a very short statement from that long disagreement scattered throughout the biography of that narrator. One scholar says he is *thiqah* (trustworthy), another says there is no problem with him, another says he is weak, and another says he narrates *munaqirat* (anomalous reports). It may even be said that he is one who narrates *munkar* (denounced) hadiths. Many, and very many, students of knowledge do not know the difference between one who narrates *munaqirat* and one who narrates *munkar* hadiths, and similar very important distinctions. How can one summarize this severe disagreement into a single word, such as "this is a weak hadith" or "a *hasan* hadith" or "a *sahih* (authentic) hadith"? This is where precision comes in. Therefore, we find that many students, when they find a scholar in the past or in hadith who classifies a hadith as *hasan*, saying "So-and-so said this, and so-and-so said it is weak or has poor memory, or something similar," they lean on the opinions of those who weaken it and do not look at the opinions of those who authenticate it. Then they do not extract a conclusion from these differing opinions; rather, they lean toward one side. What drove them to do so—Allah knows their intention—was ignorance and desire, or error; Allah knows best. Part of the precision is that I said this difficulty is clear now: the opinions of the scholars of *al-jarh wa al-ta'dil* (the critique and vindication of narrators) differ. So he must take a summary. For the beginner in this science, I advise him to rely on the book *al-Taqrib* by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, on *al-Mughni fi al-Du'afa wa al-Matrukin* by al-Dhahabi, even if this is not as clear as *al-Taqrib*, and on *al-Kashif* by al-Dhahabi as well, because it is a summary. The best book of summary I have found is *Taqrib al-Tahdhib* by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar. This helps the beginner to understand, if he is endowed with intelligence or acumen, how So-and-so said "he is *siddiq* (truthful)" even though, if he returns to the original *Tahdhib al-Tahdhib*, he finds severe criticism there. By relying on Ibn Hajar's judgment and returning to the original, he can, over time, form an opinion. I say this is what benefits from the words of al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi. But the extreme precision is that you see the individual scholar sometimes contradicting himself: sometimes he authenticates and sometimes he weakens; sometimes he authenticates and sometimes he weakens. Now the topic has shifted from one person to another and is confined to one person. This one person reads the biography once and summarizes from it that the hadith is *hasan*, but time passes and time passes, and something becomes clear to him that was hidden from him, so he judges this man as weak and weakens his hadith. The one who has no knowledge of these details and these realities says, "This is a contradiction, a true contradiction." Let us now return to the opinions of the jurists on the same issue, especially Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). You find him giving different rulings on the same issue. Why?
Because *ijtihad* (independent legal reasoning) changes, and observations differ according to a person's advancement in knowledge, age, and experience. Perhaps you remember a narration reported from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab that he was asked about a case concerning a share in inheritance, so he answered with an opinion. After about a year, he was asked the same question and answered with a different answer. He was told, "Previously you answered differently." He replied, "That was based on what we used to issue rulings on, and this is based on what we issue rulings on now." This indicates that a scholar's *ijtihad* may change. This is in *fiqh* (Islamic jurisprudence); what about the narrators of hadith, about whom the opinions of the Imams of *al-jarh wa al-ta'dil* differ? The same student's opinion differs from one time to another. So the one who has no knowledge and does not know the reason for that is surprised. There is no surprise, then, in the disagreement of hadith scholars regarding the same narrator. We return to the principles: al-Bukhari says so-and-so, and Ahmad says so-and-so, because that goes back to *ijtihad* and to the study of the hadiths of that narrator who is authenticated or weakened. So each is according to what Allah has opened up for him and facilitated for him of knowledge.
In summary, the student of knowledge must be patient in seeking this knowledge, because it is, in reality, one of the most precise sciences of the Shari'ah. Therefore, it was among the virtues of this Ummah (the Muslim community) that it was distinguished by the science of hadith and *isnad* (the chain of narration) over all other nations, as witnessed by some non-Muslim scholars, those called Orientalists. They testified that this Ummah was distinguished by this characteristic: the knowledge of old narrations through the path of *isnad*. So it is no wonder that it is established from Imam 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, one of the teachers of Imam Ahmad, that he said: "The *isnad* is part of the religion". The *isnad* is part of the religion, because without the *isnad*, what befell the religion of the Jews and the Christians would have befallen the religion of Islam. They now cannot establish anything absolutely regarding the guidance of Moses or Jesus. The Torah and the Gospel, which were revealed from the sky to the hearts of Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them), have changed and been altered. What about the sayings of these two noble prophets? They have gone to waste. The Jews and Christians cannot know what is authentic from their prophets, unlike the Muslims, and praise be to Allah. Because of this *isnad*, and by the grace of what Allah facilitated for the scholars of hadith in tracing the biographies of the narrators of these *isnads*, we can say today: "The Messenger of Allah said, the Messenger of Allah did, he saw so-and-so, he did so-and-so, he campaigned so-and-so," and so on. That is from the grace of Allah upon us and upon people, but most people do not know.
Please, who is there? Please.