What is your view of the hadith criticism, represented by the grading of authenticity and weakness, found in the works of Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut, Ahmad Shakir, and some students of knowledge?

The questioner : What is your view of the hadith criticism, represented by the grading of authenticity, goodness, and weakness, found in the research of Shu'ayb, Ahmad Shakir, and 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz, and of some emerging students of knowledge who have produced works and research, such as 'Abd Allah ibn Yusuf and Badr al-Badr, among others?

The Shaykh : Repeat the beginning of the question.

The questioner : What is your view of the hadith criticism, represented by the grading of authenticity...

The Shaykh : You can take the answer from what was said earlier when we mentioned that this knowledge requires a person to become proficient in it over time; do you remember this research?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : However, Ahmad Shakir is an exception; he is undoubtedly a shaykh in this craft, but he has some independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in which we do not see him as correct. Some of these independent judgments were ones I myself fell into, and it is not long since you were doing the same regarding the reliance on the authentications of Ibn Hibban. He passed away (may Allah have mercy on him) while still confident in and relying on the authentications of Ibn Hibban. As they say, one thing brings to mind another. One of the incentives that led me, when I was young, to accept an offer to be a guide for the Saudi-Palestinian contingent when they returned from Palestine was that, as you know, there were contingents from the Arab countries, but unfortunately they returned with empty hands. There were about four hundred soldiers of Saudi nationality residing in Syria. The Saudi state had agreed with the Syrian state at that time to form a Saudi contingent to fight in Palestine alongside the Syrian army, and this contingent had a Saudi chief or commander. This commander's name was Fahd al-Malik; at first, we knew his name as al-Mariq. It appears he later realized that this name was not acceptable in the Shari'ah, so he changed the qaf to a kaf, and his name became Fahd al-Malik. He was a student of knowledge at the Tawhid School in Ta'if, whereThe Shaykh : Bahjat Batar (may Allah have mercy on him) was teaching. After the matter ended as it did and the Arab armies returned to their respective countries, this order was issued to the Saudi contingent to return to Riyadh to pay respects to King Faisal at that time (may Allah have mercy on him). Since this Fahd was among the students of knowledge...

The questioner : Saud or Faisal?

The Shaykh : Saud, by Allah, Saud. Since this Fahd had some piety, he wished to accompany a guide for this contingent because he would be returning from Damascus to Riyadh by land. After details we will omit now, his choice fell on Al-Albani, so I traveled with the contingent. This brings me to my previous point. One of the incentives that led me to travel by land in army trucks, where we actually faced death from thirst in a long story we are not getting into now, was that we arrived safely in Riyadh and met King Saud, and so on. My desire was to meet withThe Shaykh : Ahmad Shakir andThe Shaykh : Hamid, and that happened.

The questioner : You mean they were in Riyadh?

The Shaykh : Wherever they were, I know from their news that they perform Hajj every year, and it appears this was at the expense of the King. So what happened is that I met withThe Shaykh : Hamid andThe Shaykh : Ahmad as well, each in the hotel where they were staying in Makkah. When I metThe Shaykh : Ahmad, I went to his hotel there, and by Allah, I forgot its name, Shabra or something like that, named after some hotels in Egypt. The point is, as soon as I greeted him and sat down, I said to him, "I am a student of knowledge who came from Damascus..."

The questioner : Ahmad Shakir or Hamid?

The Shaykh : Ahmad Shakir. I came with the intention of meeting you, getting to know you, and benefiting from your knowledge, and so on. The man surprised me; he said to me in Egyptian dialect, "If you are sick." He had no willingness. We sat for a little while, then we left. After that, I traveled from Makkah to Madinah after Hajj, and I learned thatThe Shaykh : Ahmad was also staying in a hotel there. So I went to him. In summary, we spent a decent amount of time with him, and I raised the topic of his authentication of Ibn Hibban, his authentication of Ibn Hibban's authentications. I truly regretted that he did not have the breadth of mind for discussion and exchange, as is the nature of scholars. He became angry, in a heroic manner, saying, "How can we not trust the words of the scholars?" I said to him, butThe Shaykh : Ahmad ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, in the introduction of al-Lisan on al-Mizan, "Lisan al-Mizan," mentions his methodology and Ibn Hibban's approach in authentication, stating that it is based on authenticating those who are unknown to other scholars. He became angry with that anger and did not allow any room for exchange or discussion with him at all. For example, he relies on Ibn Ishaq, "Muhammad ibn Ishaq," and does not pay attention to his use of the term "from" (ta'annun) at all. He authenticates the hadith of Ibn Lahi'ah absolutely, whereas there is detail in his biography, as is known, and so on. But the man is mature in this knowledge and has his opinions and independent reasoning. As for the others, they are not shaykhs in this knowledge; they are emerging students. The examples in this field actually multiply and vary, but one thing brings to mind another. On the occasion of our brother Badr, what book does he have?
Al-Halabi : Al-Da'awat (The Calls).

The Shaykh : Yes, Al-Da'awat, well done.
Al-Halabi : Is it here?

The Shaykh : Where is it? Is he researching a hadith around which his thesis is composed?
Al-Halabi : Yes, O Allah, I ask You by Your right...

The Shaykh : Yes, by Your rightThe questioner : over you and by the right of my walk, he mentioned it and its source in one place and referred in his research to my book, Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah (The Chain of Weak Hadiths), and praised the topic there. But I noticed something, which is the point at issue now.

The questioner:..

The Shaykh : Wait a moment, a little about the hadith of Abu Sa'id in Do you know it? Do you remember it? And as you know, it is from the route of 'Atiyyah al-'Awfi.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : What does it say? I said: "Its chain is weak, and 'Atiyyah is a deceiver (mudallis), and he used the term 'from' in its chain." Many of the contemporaries fell into this, including Ibn your country in Riyadh, Isma'il al-Ansari, who wrote about this use of 'from' in a way that indicates either his negligence or his overlooking it. Our companion also fell into this negligence, where he said, after stating "and 'Atiyyah is a deceiver and he used the term 'from' in its chain," "Refer to the discussion of the chain of this hadith and its routes in Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah, part, page. And Al-Albani (may Allah preserve him) has fully discussed it there with nothing to add, so refer to it. We clarified there that the use of 'from' here does not benefit from explicit narration. Look at what he said in another hadith. Look, Abu al-Harith, the hadith of forty-six: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say when morning came and the sun rose, 'Praise be to Allah who has covered us today with His well-being and brought the sun...'" and so on. He says, "And in it is also 'Atiyyah al-'Awfi, who is a deceiver, and he did not explicitly state hearing from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri. I do not know if you have an idea about this specific point regarding the type of 'Atiyyah's deception. 'Atiyyah's deception is of the type of deception in the names of shaykhs, not deception in the chain, meaning that if he explicitly states narration, the suspicion is gone. So Isma'il al-Ansari, in his thesis al-Intisar, have you come across it?The Shaykh : Al-Albani (may Allah preserve him) has spoken about it in a way that leaves nothing to be added, so refer to his work. We clarified there that the use of "an'anah" (the narrator's name) in this context does not serve as an explicit indication of hearing the hadith. Look at what he said in another hadith; look, Abu al-Harith, in hadith number forty-six, it states that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would say when morning came and the sun rose, "Praise be to Allah who has covered us today with His well-being and brought forth the sun..." to the end of it. He says that 'Atiyyah al-'Aufi is included in it, and he is a mudallis (one who conceals defects in chains), and he did not explicitly state that he heard it from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri. I do not know if you have an idea about this specific point regarding the type of tadlis (concealment) practiced by 'Atiyyah. 'Atiyyah's tadlis is of the type known as tadlis al-shuyukh (concealment of the shaykhs), not tadlis al-isnad (concealment of the chain), meaning that if he explicitly stated that he heard it, the doubt would be removed. Ismail al-Ansari, in his treatise al-Intisar, perhaps you have come across it?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Have you not come across it? And how can a Najdi defend Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab? You must have "Al-Intisar li-l-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab 'ala al-Albani" (The Defense of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab against Al-Albani).

The questioner : I have heard of it, but I have not read it. I have not had the opportunity to read it.

The Shaykh : The point there is that he hums about it being "authentic and deceptive," but he explicitly stated narration, saying in a narration he mentioned, "Abu Sa'id narrated to me." But 'Atiyyah's use of 'from' is of the type of deception in the names of shaykhs. So if he said "Abu Sa'id narrated to me," he means Abu Sa'id al-Kalbi, the liar and fabricator, whom he used to refer to by the kunya Abu Sa'id. So if he says "Abu Sa'id narrated to me," he misleads people into thinking it is Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, when he means al-Kalbi. So this does not benefit from the fact that he said "So-and-so narrated to me." I think this is clear?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Our brother Badr, one of our good Salafi brothers, and many others—indeed, a great many—do not pay attention to these details. This is because the common and established understanding of *tadlis* (concealment of a defect in a chain) is that if the *'an'anah* (using the particle "from") is absent and the narrator explicitly states the transmission, the defect is removed. This is a type that is not of that type; therefore, I say that those who are currently in the arena, all of them or at least most of them, are young scholars, meaning they are not yet experienced, and a good future is hoped for them, if Allah wills. Some of those I named, like your neighbor now, used to rely on Al-Albani's books, taking from them and taking their summaries, but he does not have known, prominent independent legal reasoning (*ijtihad*), and often he exercises independent legal reasoning and makes mistakes. May Allah help us. Who else do you have?

The questioner : You mentioned the young scholars. Of course, before the young scholars, you mentioned Ahmad Shakir, and then you mentioned the young scholars, and we mentionedThe Shaykh : 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz. I do not know what your opinion is?

The Shaykh : 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz is a noble shaykh and our brother from long ago, and so on; but he is not in this field, because his circumstances and position do not help him to roam through the books. Then I say a general word, and do not hold it against our Najdi brothers: they have finally excelled in the science of hadith. It is sufficient to say that, unfortunately, there are no scholars in Najdi history who have distinguished themselves in the science of hadith. The current group, without a doubt, and this is from the favor of the shaykhs, have turned with the youth to the science of hadith, but after a long time and after much effort. Therefore, they are not currently able to verify, authenticate, or weaken hadiths, because they have missed the caravan. This is my opinion, and if you have an observation, we will hear it.