“The hadith scholar of the Levant … has undertaken the documentation of the hadiths contained in this book. This documentation will be published separately as a volume, while here we shall content ourselves with referring to the hadiths by giving their numbers preceded by the letter ( ت ).”
The significant phrase here is, “This documentation will be published separately as a volume,” for it suggests that the hadiths are likewise documented in this book itself; otherwise, there would have been no need to state explicitly that the documentation would be published separately. Admittedly, this apparent meaning conflicts with the words, “while here we shall content ourselves…” This is why we said that the wording creates a misleading impression but is not definitive. The confusion was compounded by ending each documentation entry with the aforementioned symbol ( ت ). On its face, this confirms that the documentation is mine, whereas it is not. There is a considerable difference between the two, as will become clear when you compare them. I shall illustrate this for the esteemed reader with several examples from the beginning of the book.
- Concerning the first hadith, he wrote: “It was reported by al-Hākim … who declared it authentic, with al-Dhahabī concurring. See Documentation of the Hadiths in The Lawful and the Prohibited, by the eminent hadith scholar Shaykh Muhammad Nāsir al-Dīn al-Albānī, ت : 1.”
By consulting my documentation of the hadith in question, you will see that I disagreed with al-Dhahabī’s concurrence on two grounds that I mentioned, and that the hadith is sound in itself and authentic by virtue of corroborating evidence.
- Concerning the second hadith, he wrote: “It was reported and declared authentic by al-Hākim, and was also reported by al-Bazzār, ت : 2.”
I say: It is only sound, as will be explained.
- Concerning the fourth hadith, he wrote: “It was reported by al-Dāraqutnī and declared sound by al-Nawawī, ت : 4.”
It will be shown that its chain of transmission is weak and that there is no basis for grading it as a sound hadith. It is “good” only in the ordinary linguistic sense.
- Concerning the eighth hadith, he wrote: “It was reported by Ahmad, ت : 8.”
I did not attribute it to Ahmad. Rather, I pointed out that attributing it to him was an error and explained the reason there