He spoke about the book *Riyad al-Salihin*, which was published with the editing of Hassan 'Abd al-Mannan.

The Shaykh : We now have a new problem that has occurred, which perhaps you have not yet heard of because it is recent. The book *Riyad al-Salihin* was just published with the editing of a young man named Hassan 'Abd al-Mannan. Did the book reach you? Have you looked at it? This is a novice. The point is that this is a young novice, and it is not permissible for him to authenticate or weaken hadiths at all, because he is a beginner in this field. So he published *Riyad al-Salihin* by Imam al-Nawawi, extracted from it, and separated out about 140 or 50 hadiths, placing them at the end of the book as weak hadiths that appeared in *Riyad al-Salihin*. He separated them based on the premise that what remained in *Riyad al-Salihin* is authentic, according to his own perspective. He went far beyond the mark, greatly so, and included in the weak hadiths that he made an appendix to *Riyad al-Salihin* and extracted from it, even some hadiths found in *Sahih al-Bukhari* and *Muslim*, and he is mistaken. Some scholars, as you know, have taken issue with some hadiths in the two Sahihs, but that is not the same thing at all. Also, as a witness to what I was just referring to, we are now renewing the printing of the second volume of *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah*, and in it is the hadith of al-'Arba' ibn Sariyah, which is known to you: and so on. This is one of the hadiths that his ignorance targeted, so he weakened it. So I seized the opportunity when I looked at his weakening of this hadith, which is from *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah*, and I studied his statement. I found it based on extreme ignorance, and the reason is that he has not practiced this science and does not know the methods of those who authenticate and weaken hadiths. There are things, Professor, that a student of knowledge cannot find explicitly stated in the principles of hadith; rather, these are derived from the treatment of the hadiths by the memorizers and critics. This hadith of al-'Arba' ibn Sariyah was mentioned by Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) in *Riyad al-Salihin*, attributed to *Sunan Abu Dawud*, *al-Tirmidhi*, and others, and al-Tirmidhi authenticated it. This man came and said there is a problem with it, or something similar to that meaning, because it contains a narration from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Amr al-Sulami al-Dimashqi, who is of unknown status, as Ibn al-Qattan said. This is in the commentary, and he did not include it in the weak hadiths in the appendix. If we return to the biography of this 'Abd al-Rahman, we find something that is certainly due to his ignorance. He narrated from him, and first, he is a Tabi'i (successor) and heard from al-'Arba' and others, and a group of trustworthy narrators narrated from him, and Ibn Hibban authenticated him, but here the point is that this is knowledge that is not hidden. However, al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim authenticated it, and I mentioned about ten memorizers who explicitly stated the authentication of this hadith. In addition to that, it has other routes other than the route of this 'Abd al-Rahman from al-'Arba'. When I discovered this and it was suggested to me to meet with this young man, I was not eager to do so for two reasons. The first reason, as our brothers and others know, is that I do not find the free time to meet with every student and seeker. The second is that I do not know the character of this person; whether he is truly a student of knowledge and a seeker of truth, and that he does not want to appear as an editor and critic. This is what I inferred from the introduction to the weak hadiths mentioned earlier, where he said, in effect, that in his editing of this book, he found about 140 hadiths or more of the weak hadiths. And the point isThe Shaykh : Al-Albani extracted only 40 hadiths, andThe Shaykh : Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut about 45, and he has 130 and 40 here. Here they say about us in Syria: "The six faces appear."
So I did not feel at ease, nor did I dare to meet him, but some relatives insisted on me, saying, "My brother, perhaps Allah will guide him, perhaps Allah will do such and such." We said, "Fine, we took the risk and scheduled a session for him after the 'Isha' prayer." Our brother Muhammad Shuqara, you know him well, did I meet him?

The questioner : I know him through my reading of his work.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : But I have not met him in person.

The Shaykh : I have not met him. He is a noble man, one of our Salafi brothers, and he is among the best of them in culture, except as Allah wills. And this brother who is recording was also present, so we were four. As soon as he sat down.

The questioner : The one listening to the speech, Shaykh, the recorder, thinks he is a man who is recording.

The Shaykh : He thinks he is a man?

The questioner : Because your speech is such that a man is sitting here recording.

The Shaykh : How do you mean?

The questioner : I said, this brother who is recording.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : If I were writing now, it would be said that I am recording.

The Shaykh : Well done, so what shall we say?

The questioner : You know best, Shaykh.
Al-Halabi : You mean Abu Layla.

The questioner : I mean Abu Layla. So that the recording is understood as writing.

The Shaykh : So we say, and here it is permissible to agree that I ask you for help. So what shall we say? Yes.

Another questioner : We say, Shaykh, state his name.

The Shaykh : No, the doubt does not go away because he will continue to record with the pen. So find us an alternative.

The questioner : Here or in Saudi Arabia?

The Shaykh : Here. The point is, as soon as he sat down, he made an introduction full of humility and acknowledgment of the favor. And among his words, which are also recorded on the tape,
Abu Layla : In the *Silsilat al-Huda wa al-Nur* series, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, and this also needs to be added, but we leave that to you. The important thing is he says, "The truth, Shaykh, or he said, 'Professor, I graduated from your books, and were it not for your books, I would have been nothing in this science.'" He acknowledges this, and then adds to that that he had gained experience and studied this science under the hand of Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut. Do you know him?
He was an employee there, and he adds to his previous words, saying, "EvenThe Shaykh : Shu'ayb acknowledges this." We said, "By Allah, this is good news, meaning that since this man, our friend, acknowledges this, then we will benefit from discussing and debating with him. But the news was not as expected, unfortunately. He had presented to me his method of discussing all the routes, and in it is the route of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Amr al-Sulami, or Sulami. So I directed questions to him, and among these questions was that you were ignorant of this by following Ibn al-Qattan. So why did you turn away from the authentication of those who authenticated? Authentication necessitates authentication of the narrator. This is what I say is rarely pointed out in the science of terminology. Meaning, if Muslim or al-Bukhari narrates from a narrator, and then we find a memorizer who says so-and-so is unknown, but since one of themThe Shaykh : Yes, and even if someone else had authenticated it, the meaning of "And upon you be peace" is that this authenticator has vouched for the reliability of this narrator. Naturally, there is also a point of precision here regarding al-Tirmidhi. When al-Tirmidhi says, "This is an authentic, strange hadith," we can infer what I mentioned earlier from this authentication, namely that the men in al-Tirmidhi's chain are trustworthy and that he is qualified to authenticate it. However, if he says, "This is an authentic hadith," or simply "This is a good hadith," then we cannot infer from that statement what we inferred from his previous statement. Why? Because he has a specific terminology: when he says "authentic and strange," he means it is unique in this chain, and he would not authenticate it unless its narrators were trustworthy in his view. But if he says "good hadith" or "authentic hadith," he stated at the end of his book on defects that when he says "good hadith," he means it is good due to its corroborating chains, unless the weakness in some of its narrators is severe. I asked him, "Why did you rely on Ibn al-Qattan and his statement that this narrator is of unknown status, while ignoring the authentication of those who authenticated it?" That implies the narrator is trustworthy in their view. Furthermore, Ibn Hibban explicitly vouched for his reliability. This brings us to the point of the research: the well-known jurisprudential rule, first among jurists and second among hadith scholars, which is that the affirming evidence takes precedence over the negating evidence. Here, the man revealed that he does not believe in this rule. We asked, "Why?" Then our brother Abu Malik Muhammad Shuqara stood up and said, "O Hassan, this is a rule agreed upon by hadith scholars." I had cited the words of Imam al-Bukhari in his treatise on raising the hands in support of this rule. You know that al-Bukhari holds the view that raising the hands for bowing and rising from it is legislated, contrary to the people of Kufa, among whom is Abu Hanifa. He argued using this rule, supported by the hadith of Bilal: when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) entered the Ka'bah and prayed two units in it, then exited, Ibn 'Umar met him and asked what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had done. He informed him that he had prayed two units between two pillars, describing it in precise detail, as is known. As for Ibn 'Abbas, he said the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed facing the Ka'bah but did not enter it. Al-Bukhari said, "So the scholars adopted what Bilal narrated and did not adopt [the other]." All of them were truthful, and each reported what he knew and witnessed. This is among the proofs for this rule. He does not believe in it, so I argued with him: my brother, if a man is described as a "hafiz of unknown status," it means his integrity, precision, and memorization are not known. But the one who vouched for his reliability has known him. Therefore, the one who knows is a proof against the one who does not know. This rule, while mostly used in jurisprudence, also has a role in hadith science. In summary, we held a long session, and it became clear that the man was not on the right track.
Finally, and here is the point, he sent me a message refuting all the chains and revealing their defects. In this message, there is some retreat, but in a diplomatic manner. In addition, he did not admit to the errors that were exposed to him in the session, so he did not return to them. For example, Isma'il ibn 'Iyash is well known; he is one of the scholars of Damascus, the Levant, and he is from Hims. He has two states in narrating hadith, and this is part of the precision of hadith scholars. Al-Bukhari, his teacher Yahya ibn Ma'in, Duhaym al-Dimashqi, and other preservers said that if he narrates from the people of the Levant, his narration is authentic. If he narrates from others, such as the people of the Hijaz, it is weak. In one of the chains of this hadith, there is Isma'il ibn 'Iyash, so he weakened it. I asked him, "How can you weaken Isma'il ibn 'Iyash when his narration here is from the Levant?" He answered, "Yes, his narration from the Levant is less weak." I asked, "Who said that?" Scholars say, as we mentioned earlier. I opened *Tahdhib al-Tahdhib* for him and read to him the words of al-Bukhari and others. More important than all of this is—glory be to Allah—it became clear to me that he is a person of bias. He takes from the scholars' statements whatever supports his weakening, and he is very well-versed in the books. It is enough for you to know that he weakened some authentic hadiths. For example, the famous hadith This is in al-Bukhari, and he weakened it, even though he indicated in his weakening that it has other chains, yet he did not care about them.
The important thing.

Another questioner: And it is true that it has chains that increase its strength, following him.

The Shaykh : How?

Another questioner: That it increases its strength, following him, in weakening the hadith, meaning his ignorance, and he indicated that it has chains that increase its strength through his foolishness.

The Shaykh: No, it increases through his bias.

Another questioner: Through his bias.

The Shaykh: I mean, he has a goal: he wants to weaken what no one has weakened before him, so that he appears to be a researcher in the sky. He passes by the corroborating chains with a light touch, while the one whose goal is to support the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by authenticating or weakening it, devotes his effort to reach what is close to certainty: whether these chains strengthen each other or do not strengthen each other due to severe weakness. The important thing is that in some chains, he argues with Duhaym, this Levantine preserver. What is his name? Ibn Muti'?
Al-Halabi: Yahya.

The Shaykh: Yahya, Yahya ibn Abi Muti' is among the narrators from al-'Arba'. He says, "I heard al-'Arba'." He transmitted from Duhaym that he said, "He did not hear from him," even though in the authentic chain, which he acknowledges, from Yahya ibn Abi Muti', it says, "I heard al-'Arba'." He abandons this explicit statement of hearing and direct transmission in favor of Duhaym's statement, "He did not hear from him." Here too, we repeated the previous rule to him: my brother, the affirming evidence takes precedence over the negating evidence. He did not heed this rule. In another place, he weakened a man among the narrators of these chains due to his unknown status, even though Duhaym vouched for his reliability, so he did not pay attention to it. He is a person of bias.
Al-Halabi: The same Duhaym here before, and here he rejected it.

The Shaykh: Yes, the same Duhaym. The point is that Duhaym, in the biography of Isma'il ibn 'Iyash, says that in his narration from the Levant, it is a proof, the ultimate proof.
Al-Halabi: Look how

The Shaykh: He is a person of bias. I mean, he sent me a message containing a detailed research on the defects of the hadith according to his bias. But I said, be moderate, but in a roundabout way, not explicitly. He did not say, "By Allah, I was weakening such-and-such a chain because of what is from 'Iyash, and it became clear to me from the meeting with so-and-so, and so on, that he is a proof in the Levant, and this is from his narration from the Levant, but the real defect is such-and-such, and so on." At the end of the message, the hadith is authentic in his view by the sum of the chains, except for two parts of it. The first part is This did not become authentic in his view, meaning he did not find a corroborator for it. And the other part...
Al-Halabi: The second part: The believer is like a camel with a nose ring.

The Shaykh: If it is tied, it is tied. He says, "I did not find a corroborator for this." My brother, may Allah reward him with good, pay attention: the hadith of al-'Arba' that I authenticated in *al-Silsilah* is the one he criticized before it. He extracted this hadith.
Al-Halabi: Before it by one hadith, or before it by one hadith, meaning.

The Shaykh: No, it is directly before it.
Al-Halabi: Ah, I understand. You say "before it," meaning it is not understood as "before it," meaning.

The Shaykh: No, directly before it, meaning.
Al-Halabi: Directly before it.

The Shaykh: I mean, this hadith which he denied from the hadith of al-'Arba' and claimed has no corroborator is extracted in my *al-Silsilah* directly before the hadith of al-'Arba'. For example, this one is number 100, and that one is number 101. Despite that, he denies it. I said, this is not his intellect; he is not filled with the Sunnah. He treats the subject as a passerby; he does not memorize, but rather stands before what is presented to him at that moment and then processes it. And this happened to him completely. The hadith, as they say, has many threads. The hadith of al-Bukhari I extracted this hadith in the same volume. And when he criticized it, because I mentioned in the extraction an addition that al-Bukhari suspended I extracted it and clarified that al-Bukhari narrated the hadith with this addition as a suspended narration, and in it is a man for whom we did not find a biography. So he picked up the benefit and made it a hint in the hadith and published it among the weak hadiths in the addition to *Riyadh*. Here is the point: before this hadith is the hadith of al-Bukhari, which is in *al-Riyadh*, and the man criticized it before it in a hadith in *al-Riyadh* from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in *Sahih Muslim*, which has this addition. He should not have spoken about this addition that al-Bukhari suspended, because it has a connected corroborator in *Sahih Muslim*. So he looks with a localized view, meaning he does not have the wide horizon in corroborating with narrations and supporting what is weak in a narration. So glory be to Allah, now we are afflicted with such a person, and we wrote some notes on some of these hadiths and made it a correction in the volume that is currently being printed of *al-Sahihah*, the second volume, which is now under press. Yes.

Another questioner: That is, there are two in the second volume: Khalid the mu'adhdhin, and this one.
Al-Halabi: And a third.

Another questioner: Who is the third?