What is your opinion regarding these concealers of defects and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s book on the names of the concealers and their levels?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, the first "Da'if" (weak hadith) number 85, this is a hadith.
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner : ... concealers of defects, I mean.
The Shaykh : ... for example, some of the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions) attribute a defect to a hadith when it is narrated with a broken chain (mu'annan) from a Companion, but if it is narrated from a peer of his among the Tabi'un, they do not. But when we return to the biography of Abu Qilabah, what type is he? It must be determined if he is of the type who generally conceals defects... in that case, the defect remains valid. In addition to that, you know the text; you know that if there were no broken chain, the text would be considered anomalous, and it would be accepted from matters external to the chain. Therefore, the matter remains as it is here.
The questioner : Shaykh, well, regarding the concealment of defects by Abu Qilabah... al-Hafiz places him in the first rank in his book "Al-Ta'rif bi Ahl al-Tadlis" (Identification of the People of Concealment)...
The Shaykh : Al-Hafiz has many lapses in this treatise; it lacks precision, and you will find his statements in the treatise contradicting those in "Al-Taqrib." And Allah knows best. The issue requires a specific study to know what... sometimes which of his works is earlier, the treatise on concealers of defects or "Al-Taqrib." What comes to mind before expanding the investigation is that his treatise preceded his book "Al-Taqrib." "Al-Taqrib" is a book that covers an approximate study of more hadith narrators, which takes a very long time. So the important thing is that we observe the discrepancy between the two books, so he must have been correct in one and wrong in the other. Personally, I still record some of the errors he makes, for example, regarding some matters, such as the authentication by Ibn Hibban. He pointed out a very important rule in the introduction to "Al-Lisan" that I was the first of the contemporaries to benefit from, which is that Ibn Hibban is lenient, but he did not limit this leniency to what I reached after my personal experience. And as time passed, it seemed to me that he had preceded me in noticing this, but he did not precede me in adopting it as a rule. I found that in many of the narrators he mentioned in "Al-Tahdhib" (the original of "Al-Taqrib"), where Ibn Hibban alone authenticated them, he dismisses them by saying, for example, "acceptable" or "concealed," and so on. Sometimes he calls him "thiqah" (trustworthy), sometimes "siddiq" (truthful). I noticed the difference after I became aware of this. And he notices the large number of narrators who narrated from this narrator whom Ibn Hibban authenticated; here he says "siddiq" or "thiqah." But if one or two narrated from him, he does not say "thiqah" or "siddiq," but rather says "unknown" or "concealed" or something similar. Similarly, and recently, perhaps a card passed by you where he said about a man that he is "concealed." If you return to the methodology he followed in the introduction, he says "concealed" from those from whom more than one person narrated. That is his rule. But now he says about him "unknown." If you return to many of the narrators in "Al-Tahdhib," he mentions only one narrator from him, yet in "Al-Taqrib" he says "concealed." "Concealed" requires more than one person. Since there is not more than one, then we expand our search cautiously and do not find more than one. So this is one of his errors; a slip of the pen, a slip of the mind, and so on. What I want to say is that the concealment of defects or the concealers of defects he mentioned in his treatise actually require a precise study, because he may list someone who deserves to be in the third level in the second, or someone in the second in the first, and so on. Therefore, some of the young scholars accuse me of two contradictory charges. Some say: "He follows Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani." And some say: "He is an innovator who knows more than Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani." The first one takes from my agreement with him in most of his rulings that I am a follower (mقلid) of him and not discerning. The other takes from my disagreement with him in some of his rulings that I claim to know more. So the important thing, in summary, is that the words of al-Hafiz or others, such as al-Dhahabi, should be taken; you will find him in "Al-Mizan" one way and in "Al-Kashif" another, with the ruling being completely different.
The questioner : ... Glory be to Allah regarding Abu Qilabah in "Al-Asrar" (or "Al-Sirah"); how his statement in "Al-Mizan" is clearer.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner : ... concealers of defects, I mean.
The Shaykh : ... for example, some of the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions) attribute a defect to a hadith when it is narrated with a broken chain (mu'annan) from a Companion, but if it is narrated from a peer of his among the Tabi'un, they do not. But when we return to the biography of Abu Qilabah, what type is he? It must be determined if he is of the type who generally conceals defects... in that case, the defect remains valid. In addition to that, you know the text; you know that if there were no broken chain, the text would be considered anomalous, and it would be accepted from matters external to the chain. Therefore, the matter remains as it is here.
The questioner : Shaykh, well, regarding the concealment of defects by Abu Qilabah... al-Hafiz places him in the first rank in his book "Al-Ta'rif bi Ahl al-Tadlis" (Identification of the People of Concealment)...
The Shaykh : Al-Hafiz has many lapses in this treatise; it lacks precision, and you will find his statements in the treatise contradicting those in "Al-Taqrib." And Allah knows best. The issue requires a specific study to know what... sometimes which of his works is earlier, the treatise on concealers of defects or "Al-Taqrib." What comes to mind before expanding the investigation is that his treatise preceded his book "Al-Taqrib." "Al-Taqrib" is a book that covers an approximate study of more hadith narrators, which takes a very long time. So the important thing is that we observe the discrepancy between the two books, so he must have been correct in one and wrong in the other. Personally, I still record some of the errors he makes, for example, regarding some matters, such as the authentication by Ibn Hibban. He pointed out a very important rule in the introduction to "Al-Lisan" that I was the first of the contemporaries to benefit from, which is that Ibn Hibban is lenient, but he did not limit this leniency to what I reached after my personal experience. And as time passed, it seemed to me that he had preceded me in noticing this, but he did not precede me in adopting it as a rule. I found that in many of the narrators he mentioned in "Al-Tahdhib" (the original of "Al-Taqrib"), where Ibn Hibban alone authenticated them, he dismisses them by saying, for example, "acceptable" or "concealed," and so on. Sometimes he calls him "thiqah" (trustworthy), sometimes "siddiq" (truthful). I noticed the difference after I became aware of this. And he notices the large number of narrators who narrated from this narrator whom Ibn Hibban authenticated; here he says "siddiq" or "thiqah." But if one or two narrated from him, he does not say "thiqah" or "siddiq," but rather says "unknown" or "concealed" or something similar. Similarly, and recently, perhaps a card passed by you where he said about a man that he is "concealed." If you return to the methodology he followed in the introduction, he says "concealed" from those from whom more than one person narrated. That is his rule. But now he says about him "unknown." If you return to many of the narrators in "Al-Tahdhib," he mentions only one narrator from him, yet in "Al-Taqrib" he says "concealed." "Concealed" requires more than one person. Since there is not more than one, then we expand our search cautiously and do not find more than one. So this is one of his errors; a slip of the pen, a slip of the mind, and so on. What I want to say is that the concealment of defects or the concealers of defects he mentioned in his treatise actually require a precise study, because he may list someone who deserves to be in the third level in the second, or someone in the second in the first, and so on. Therefore, some of the young scholars accuse me of two contradictory charges. Some say: "He follows Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani." And some say: "He is an innovator who knows more than Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani." The first one takes from my agreement with him in most of his rulings that I am a follower (mقلid) of him and not discerning. The other takes from my disagreement with him in some of his rulings that I claim to know more. So the important thing, in summary, is that the words of al-Hafiz or others, such as al-Dhahabi, should be taken; you will find him in "Al-Mizan" one way and in "Al-Kashif" another, with the ruling being completely different.
The questioner : ... Glory be to Allah regarding Abu Qilabah in "Al-Asrar" (or "Al-Sirah"); how his statement in "Al-Mizan" is clearer.
The Shaykh : That is it.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.