As we mentioned regarding the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in his book *Taqrib al-Tahdhib* concerning the acceptable narrator, that it is a specific term of his, meaning acceptable in the presence of corroboration.

The Shaykh : As we mentioned regarding the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in his book *Taqrib al-Tahdhib* concerning the acceptable narrator, that it is a specific term of his, meaning acceptable in the presence of corroboration; otherwise, if there is no corroboration, the hadith is weak. This is what he explicitly stated in the introduction. What happens today with many of the young students in this science of hadith is that they study scattered excerpts from here and there, without studying the book from beginning to end so that they know the author's terminology. Consequently, it often happens that one of them cites a hadith in which a man is described by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar as "acceptable," assuming that he understood this term in the general Arabic sense rather than in the specific sense of Ibn Hajar, who stated that it is acceptable in the presence of corroboration.The student : This is why the scholar stopped at this narrator whom al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar described as "acceptable" and cited his hadith, because he had not looked into his terminology in the introduction. Therefore, I stated at the beginning of this introduction that it is obligatory for the student of knowledge to be well-versed in the terminology of the scholars. Among the things we were discussing, on the occasion of the hadith of Umm Salama in the book *Al-Umm*, is that in the second narration, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said...

The questioner : Al-Shafi'i.

The Shaykh : Al-Shafi'i. Yes, "The trustworthy man informed me." Here, it must be interpreted in the exact opposite way to how we interpret the term "acceptable" in the case of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar. However, this is not based on al-Shafi'i's view of this trustworthy man, but rather on the view of the hadith scholars after Imam al-Shafi'i regarding the person about whom Imam al-Shafi'i said "the trustworthy man." That is because when Imam al-Shafi'i said "The trustworthy man informed me," he meant a specific man, namely Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya al-Aslami. When we read his biography in the books of hadith, we find that he is one whose narrations are abandoned and he is accused of lying. So much so that some of those who wrote on the virtues of Imam al-Shafi'i and mentioned the status of this...The Shaykh : ...of the sheikhs of Imam al-Shafi'i, and that he is accused of lying, say that Imam al-Shafi'i did not ascertain his true status. Therefore, when he narrated from him, he said "The trustworthy man informed me" and did not name him. So, when we read a hadith in the book of Imam al-Shafi'i, whether it is *Al-Umm* or another book, if he says "The trustworthy man informed me," he means Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya al-Aslami, who is not considered trustworthy by the majority of hadith scholars, and Imam al-Shafi'i did not ascertain his true status.

The questioner : Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah. This is what I wished to point out as an observation regarding the statement of al-Shafi'i, specifically "The trustworthy man informed me," which means a specific person who is not trustworthy except in the view of al-Shafi'i. This opens for us a new door in the science of hadith related to the science of hadith: if a chain of narration in a hadith is continuous with the names of the narrators, except for one of them, where the narrator says "The trustworthy man informed me," and then this trustworthy man says "So-and-so informed me," and if we look at the biographies of the men in this chain, whether those above the trustworthy man or those below him, and they are all upright, preservers, and trustworthy, does the chain become authentic or not? The answer is no. Why? Because this trustworthy man was not named and is unknown, but the one who narrated from him considers him trustworthy. However, this is not sufficient for the hadith scholars unless the identity of this trusted person is revealed, because he may be in the same situation as the sheikh of Imam al-Shafi'i, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya, who was a liar, but that was not apparent to Imam al-Shafi'i, so he considered him trustworthy. This is a type of the sciences of hadith.