الجواب الصريح على من قال بأن للنسائي شرطا في الرجال أشد من شرط البخاري ومسلم في الصحيح

Abstract EN

Some scholars described the condition of al-Nasa’i in "the Sunan" as being stronger and more severe than the condition of al-Bukhari and Muslim in their "Sahihs", and this forms with what is known that the two "Sahihs" are the most sound books after the holy Qur'an by the consensus of the nation; the nation does not agree on misguidance, and the nation recweived their books with acceptance, and their condition is more severe and stronger from the condition of others, and their arrangement stands on the top of all other "Sunnah" books as a whole.

their priority in the science of hadith and their progress in distinguishing the correct one over others are clear and well-known.

I wanted through this research to show the truth of this description, who are its owners? do they have anything to support it or not? and does the reality of the book bear witness to them or not? What shows the importance of this research is that it relates to the two Sahih books, and that Imam al-Dhahabi agreed with Saad bin Ali al-Zanjani in his saying that the condition of al-Nasa’i is more severe than the condition of al- Bukhari and Muslim, and he justified that by the fact that al- Nasa’i weakened a group of the narrators of the two "Sahihs".

and perhaps those who agree with the saying of al-Zanjani will accept it for him, because al-Dhahabi supports him.

I wanted to verify that al-Nasa’i has weakened some men in the two Sahihs, and whether this weakness was acknowledged to him and how did al-Bukhari and Muslim mention these men? also, someone who is acquainted with the saying of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar may accept the avoidance of al-Nasa’i to a group of the Sahih men according to al-Zanjani, so I wanted to explain that.

among the results I reached: that the condition of the two sheikhs is more severe and stronger than the condition of the al-Nasa'I; because they stipulated validity in the origins of the two books and exclusion from trustworthiness.

as for al-Nasa’i, he did not stipulate validityw or adherence to trustworthiness.