The statement by a scholar regarding a hadith that "its narrators are trustworthy": Does this necessarily mean that the hadith is authentic?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding the hadith in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad from Abu al-Gharif that a person in a state of major ritual impurity should not touch the Qur'an, and this hadith has narrators who are all trustworthy, and it is in al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, and the books of narrators that all its narrators are trustworthy, what is your ruling on it?
The Shaykh : My brother, when a scholar says about a hadith that "its narrators are trustworthy," it does not mean it is authentic. You must learn that when a hadith scholar says about the chain of a hadith that "its narrators are trustworthy," it does not mean that its chain is authentic. Why?
The Shaykh : If Shaykh Ahmad or Shaykh Muhammad—meaning Ahmad and I am Muhammad—says about a chain that "its narrators are trustworthy," I do not mean that it is authentic. When it is authentic, I say "its chain is authentic." And peace be upon you.
The Shaykh : My brother, when a scholar says about a hadith that "its narrators are trustworthy," it does not mean it is authentic. You must learn that when a hadith scholar says about the chain of a hadith that "its narrators are trustworthy," it does not mean that its chain is authentic. Why?
The Shaykh : If Shaykh Ahmad or Shaykh Muhammad—meaning Ahmad and I am Muhammad—says about a chain that "its narrators are trustworthy," I do not mean that it is authentic. When it is authentic, I say "its chain is authentic." And peace be upon you.