al-Bārī (11/169). What truly amazes one—indeed, the height of astonishment—is that this individual called Ḥassān should arrive on the scene, presume to look down on those eminent scholars and all who follow their lead, and oppose them by declaring weak what they had authenticated. Some gracious brothers who denounced his assault on Riyāḍ noticed this point; among them is our brother Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh Āl Shākir, who penned an excellent piece in al-Bayān magazine, issue 56, which I urge the readers to consult. May Allah reward him, he said:

“Why this disdain for the earlier scholars who were well-versed in authentication and weakening, who possess their rank, and whose words and rulings carry weight? Why does our author disregard them and content himself with his teacher’s concurrence in weakening a report or passing judgment on it—so much so that the phrase keeps recurring, its frequency becoming conspicuous and, frankly, wearisome? If the esteemed editor is so ‘faithful and precise’ in his wording that he can say, ‘Shaykh Shuʿayb agreed with me in preferring this view,’ then why is he not equally faithful and precise when editing the book, instead of tampering with it in this haphazard way, betraying the trust, and abandoning accuracy?

“The latest supposedly clever quip comes on p. 507:

‘Out of my eagerness to complete the benefit for both the general public and the specialists, I list here, in this chapter, the weak hadiths contained in Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn. They have reached, in my count, more than one hundred, and after each hadith I have appended the proof of its weakness together with a brief takhrīj.’

“It is true that laymen like myself—this is a statement of fact, not feigned humility, and at least within the investigator’s field—do benefit from that. But what need have the specialists—namely the hadith scholars and critical editors—of this chapter? Poor souls, how much they have missed!”