The Shaykh’s comment on what is found in some books of terminology regarding their statement: “The sanad of a hadith may be authentic, while its matn is not authentic.”

The Shaykh : ... And beware, you and others, of being deceived by what is in the introduction of Ibn al-Salah and other books of terminology, which states that the sanad of a hadith may be authentic while its matn is not authentic. Beware, and I repeat, beware, because this statement, in its absolute form, is not correct in reality. It must be patched up by interpreting it so that the statement becomes sound. That is, by meaning that its sanad is authentic, disregarding some of the conditions of an authentic sanad, one of which is that it must not be anomalous or defective. It may be that the sanad is described by someone as authentic, and he is excused for it because the defect was not apparent to him; ... and the defect is divided into two types: an obvious defect and a hidden defect. The second type is the one that is hidden from many scholars, let alone others. So if one of them says that the sanad of a hadith may be authentic, it is with this interpretation. As for a sanad that is authentic and free from any defect, while the matn is denounced and weak, this does not exist in the world. If you know this reality, then as I said earlier, the critic must direct his critique to the hadith by critiquing the sanad. If the sanad is sound, the matn is sound; otherwise, we open a path ...