Is it permissible for us to say that in every hadith that al-Hakim authenticated and al-Dhahabi remained silent on in "al-Talkhis," he agreed with him?

The questioner : The second question: It is known that Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) summarized al-Hakim's book al-Mustadrak, but he did not stipulate that he would point out every error al-Hakim made. So, is it permissible, given this, to say that in every hadith that al-Hakim authenticated and al-Dhahabi remained silent on in "al-Talkhis," he agreed with him, knowing that he may have remained silent on it in "al-Talkhis" but weakened it in "al-Mizan," for example?

The Shaykh : We distinguish between where he remained silent, in which case we say "he remained silent," and where he agreed, in which case we say "he agreed." We distinguish between the two matters.

The questioner : And how do we know whether he remained silent or whether he agreed?

The Shaykh : Sometimes he leaves it blank, using this expression, meaning al-Hakim in the original said "authentic chain" or said "authentic according to the condition ofThe Shaykh : al-Bukhari or one of them," as is known. As for al-Dhahabi in "al-Talkhis," he left it blank and did not say "as al-Hakim said." So if he leaves it blank, we say al-Dhahabi left it blank for him or remained silent about it. If he agreed via a symbol, we say he agreed with al-Hakim in this case. But if he did not agree and only left it blank, we say he left it blank or remained silent about it.

The questioner : I mean, the fact that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him)... I mean, al-Hakim sometimes says "authentic according to the condition of..."The Shaykh : al-Bukhari, so al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions in "al-Talkhis" that he uses the symbol kha or, for example, kha if he said "according to the condition of al-Bukhari," or mīm if he said "according to the condition of Muslim," or "authentic" if he said "authentic chain." Is this symbol considered agreement from him, or is it merely an abbreviation of al-Hakim's words?

The Shaykh : It is supposed to be merely an abbreviation, but since we have seen that he has criticized him in many matters, we have no choice but to say he agreed with him, unlike when he leaves it blank and does not address the agreement.

The questioner : Here comes an objection from some students of knowledge, saying that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) himself mentioned in al-Hakim's biography in "Siyar A'lam al-Nubala" that he abbreviated this book or summarized this book, which is "al-Mustadrak," and said that it lacks refinement and purification. This statement by al-Dhahabi indicates that he did not follow up on al-Hakim in every error he made.

The Shaykh : This can be said, but it does not mean that if he agreed with him, as I said and we said before regarding the symbol, that he contradicted him. Because we are repeating the previous answer: when he criticizes him in dozens, if not hundreds, of hadiths, how do we reconcile this criticism with the blanking out and the agreement? Here there are three levels, and we must give each of these levels its due.

The questioner : That is, some students of knowledge or some shaykhs say that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) criticized al-Hakim in whatever he happened to criticize, especially in hadiths where some of the people of innovation have an interest. For example, he says that al-Dhahabi's (may Allah have mercy on him) criticisms of al-Hakim in the book "Fada'il al-Sahabah," meaning regarding the virtues of the People of the House, which al-Hakim included more of than in other books, were more numerous than in other books.

The Shaykh : This does not mean that he certainly did not criticize him in other places. Then, what he criticized in other places has absolutely no relation to the aspect you pointed out regarding bias for a group or an individual. Often a hadith is mentioned that has no relation except to fiqh. So the theory mentioned by some of them does not mean that he only refined matters related to a specific type of hadith. This is a lot, and a very large amount. And what I want to draw attention to and affirm again is that it is not permissible for us to equate what we called agreement with what we called blanking out and what we called explicit criticism. It is not permissible for us to equate these matters and say that when, in my expression, he agreed with him, it has no value. It is not permissible for us to say that this is a great waste of such a work performed by Imam al-Dhahabi. I know that many students of knowledge today observe what we observe of al-Dhahabi's contradiction in his summary and his contradiction in other books with his summary. We say that this phenomenon is not observed only in Imam al-Dhahabi and between one book and another, but this observation is noted among many prominent scholars. One of the recent examples that passed me is a treatise by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, which I think he titled "al-Mubashshir fi Khabar al-Baraghuth" (The Messenger in the News of the Flea). This treatise was taken by al-Suyuti, as is his custom, and he added some narrations to it and titled it "al-Thu'uth fi Khabar al-Baraghuth" (The Louse in the News of the Flea). The point is that this second treatise by al-Suyuti was edited by one of the doctors in Morocco, and I looked at it before it was printed and placed a commentary on it. During the research, I reached the treatise of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani on which al-Suyuti's treatise was based, and I found a difference, as is clear, between the two men: al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar goes to weakening this hadith, whereas al-Suyuti remains silent. The hadith must have passed you that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) heard a man cursing the flea, and in a narration cursing it, and he said And here there are differences in narrations which we are not addressing now. The important thing is at the end of the treatise.
Abu Malik: I say, is the wording "he revived" or "he awakened"?

The Shaykh : No, "he awakened." The point is that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar concludes the treatise by saying, after mentioning it from the narration of Anas and the narration of Ali, "The narration of Anas or the hadith of Anas is sound, but it is acted upon in the virtues of deeds." He concluded the treatise with this and left the knowledge to Allah, saying "And Allah knows best." So now, I think you remember that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar does not state the permissibility of acting upon a weak hadith as the majority do, but he conditions it with three conditions. So I thought about how he stated it here and restricted it there. And I am inclined to think that his case is like that of every student of knowledge who begins seeking knowledge slowly and gradually, and strengthens little by little, until he reaches a level of elevation and height in knowledge, and so it is with every student of knowledge. So al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in my opinion, the point is, when he authored the treatise "al-Mubashshir," this was before his strengthening in his scientific field, in which he later became one of the luminaries. And in my opinion, women have not given birth to his like. He said this statement with the majority who say that a hadith is acted upon in the virtues of deeds, headed by Imam al-Nawawi. So when the knowledge of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar matured, he set those three conditions. We observe this in many hadiths. For example, we say "al-Fath," in which he said that the hadiths in which he remained silent are at least in the level of a hasan hadith for him. Yet you find that he criticized many of these hadiths in some of his books, such as "al-Talkhis al-Habir," for example, or the opposite: he may have weakened a hadith in "al-Fath" and remained silent about it. Excuse me, I want to say the opposite: he weakened it, and yet he strengthened it with corroborating narrations. This is something we fall into even today, and it is a very natural matter. And some ignorant people may reject it out of ignorance or denial. So what we see of the difference or contradiction between some hadiths that came either as silent upon in al-Mustadrak, or agreed with, or criticized, and we see the opposite in other books, its explanation is not that explanation that he did not direct his criticism to al-Mustadrak in the hadiths we call that he agreed with al-Hakim upon. We do not say this. Rather, this was his opinion when he summarized it. But later, the opposite became clear to him, and he stated his opinion later, as any scholar states, as we mentioned some of the examples just now.
Mashhur: In "al-Fath," in the first volume he authenticates, and in the eighth or ninth he weakens and says, "I had authenticated it."

The Shaykh : Fine.
Mashhur: And I am standing on seven instances of this.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. So this is one book. This is a natural matter. May Allah bless you.