Some of them weakened this hadith, among them al-Dhahabi, because Khalid ibn Makhlad has denarrations (munkarat). Is this correct?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you. Some of them explicitly stated that this hadith is a denounced narration (munkar), and among them is al-Dhahabi, who said, "Were it not that it is in the Sahih, I would have counted it among the denounced narrations."
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. Who said that?
The questioner : Ibn Hajar.
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The questioner : Ibn Hajar.
The Shaykh : From whom?
The questioner : From al-Dhahabi.
The Shaykh : From al-Dhahabi. Which one knows hadith better, al-Dhahabi or al-Bukhari?
The questioner : al-Bukhari
The Shaykh : Al-Bukhari. Well, two opinions conflict regarding a man, and the opinion of one is stronger (rajih) than the other. Whose do we prioritize?
The questioner : The stronger one (rajih).
The Shaykh : The stronger one (rajih). For this reason, this answer is actually general. It defends al-Bukhari against everything said about him, from his Sahih, whether it is called an error or weak. This is a general statement. We say that the scholars agreed that al-Bukhari and Muslim are the two sheikhs of this discipline, or the two masters of this discipline. If that is the case, then their preference (tarjih) conflicts with the weakening of this man, so we take that into account. Then, what is there in this hadith that necessitates its being denounced? Because this hadith is supported by the evidence. There is nothing that necessitates that it be denounced. But some people, when the aspect of some of the evidence is hidden from them, if they are able to criticize it through the chain, yes, they criticize it. And if they are not able to criticize it through the chain, they go to distort it or claim abrogation or something similar. And I hold that there is nothing wrong with it, and that it is among what is supported by the evidence. Yes.
The questioner : Imam Ahmad is earlier than al-Bukhari in speaking about this man.
The Shaykh : What did he say?
The questioner : He mentioned, saying in the biography of Khalid... after mentioning Ahmad's statement about him, that he has denarrations (munaqirat).
The Shaykh : That is, he has denarrations (munaqirat). Well, if he has denarrations (munaqirat), do we say that this hadith is a denounced narration (munkar)? I mean, even this is also a principle mentioned by the Shaykh al-Islam, I think Ibn al-Qayyim certainly, who said that al-Bukhari and Muslim may narrate from a man who is weak, a hadith that has specific paths for them indicating the authenticity of this wording, for example, or this chain. So do not think that al-Bukhari, who committed himself to not placing in the Sahih except what was authentic, to the extent that it was said that he would not place a hadith in it unless he performed ghusl, prayed two rak'ahs, and sought guidance from Allah to place it in it. If it became stronger (rajih) in his view, he would place it in it. So I see that, even if it is said that he has denarrations (munaqirat), yes, if he is attributed with denarrations (munaqirat), is this one of them?
The reader: Shaykh, al-Dhahabi's phrase seems as if he did not weaken it. In al-Siyar he says: "Were it not for the reverence of the Sahih, I would have said it is among the denarrations (munaqir)"
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. So it means he did not weaken it. Yes, in any case, were it not for the reverence, praise be to Allah, the reverence.
The reader: Ahmad narrated it in more than one place.
The Shaykh : Yes
The reader: In the Musnad, he narrated it in more than one place.
The Shaykh : Yes
The reader: ... .
The Shaykh : There is no problem, there is no problem, nothing necessitates it. But this, praise be to Allah, brought benefits. The question of the brother Ahmad brought benefits. If the awliya (close friends of Allah) humbled themselves for Allah, Allah raised them until whoever opposed them became an enemy of Allah, Mighty and Majestic.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. Who said that?
The questioner : Ibn Hajar.
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The questioner : Ibn Hajar.
The Shaykh : From whom?
The questioner : From al-Dhahabi.
The Shaykh : From al-Dhahabi. Which one knows hadith better, al-Dhahabi or al-Bukhari?
The questioner : al-Bukhari
The Shaykh : Al-Bukhari. Well, two opinions conflict regarding a man, and the opinion of one is stronger (rajih) than the other. Whose do we prioritize?
The questioner : The stronger one (rajih).
The Shaykh : The stronger one (rajih). For this reason, this answer is actually general. It defends al-Bukhari against everything said about him, from his Sahih, whether it is called an error or weak. This is a general statement. We say that the scholars agreed that al-Bukhari and Muslim are the two sheikhs of this discipline, or the two masters of this discipline. If that is the case, then their preference (tarjih) conflicts with the weakening of this man, so we take that into account. Then, what is there in this hadith that necessitates its being denounced? Because this hadith is supported by the evidence. There is nothing that necessitates that it be denounced. But some people, when the aspect of some of the evidence is hidden from them, if they are able to criticize it through the chain, yes, they criticize it. And if they are not able to criticize it through the chain, they go to distort it or claim abrogation or something similar. And I hold that there is nothing wrong with it, and that it is among what is supported by the evidence. Yes.
The questioner : Imam Ahmad is earlier than al-Bukhari in speaking about this man.
The Shaykh : What did he say?
The questioner : He mentioned, saying in the biography of Khalid... after mentioning Ahmad's statement about him, that he has denarrations (munaqirat).
The Shaykh : That is, he has denarrations (munaqirat). Well, if he has denarrations (munaqirat), do we say that this hadith is a denounced narration (munkar)? I mean, even this is also a principle mentioned by the Shaykh al-Islam, I think Ibn al-Qayyim certainly, who said that al-Bukhari and Muslim may narrate from a man who is weak, a hadith that has specific paths for them indicating the authenticity of this wording, for example, or this chain. So do not think that al-Bukhari, who committed himself to not placing in the Sahih except what was authentic, to the extent that it was said that he would not place a hadith in it unless he performed ghusl, prayed two rak'ahs, and sought guidance from Allah to place it in it. If it became stronger (rajih) in his view, he would place it in it. So I see that, even if it is said that he has denarrations (munaqirat), yes, if he is attributed with denarrations (munaqirat), is this one of them?
The reader: Shaykh, al-Dhahabi's phrase seems as if he did not weaken it. In al-Siyar he says: "Were it not for the reverence of the Sahih, I would have said it is among the denarrations (munaqir)"
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. So it means he did not weaken it. Yes, in any case, were it not for the reverence, praise be to Allah, the reverence.
The reader: Ahmad narrated it in more than one place.
The Shaykh : Yes
The reader: In the Musnad, he narrated it in more than one place.
The Shaykh : Yes
The reader: ... .
The Shaykh : There is no problem, there is no problem, nothing necessitates it. But this, praise be to Allah, brought benefits. The question of the brother Ahmad brought benefits. If the awliya (close friends of Allah) humbled themselves for Allah, Allah raised them until whoever opposed them became an enemy of Allah, Mighty and Majestic.