In his first question, he states: We read in some books that Ahmad ibn Hanbal has two or three opinions on such-and-such an issue, so I do not know whether this means that
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In his first question, he states: We read in some books that Ahmad ibn Hanbal has two or three opinions on such-and-such an issue, so I do not know whether this means that these opinions are several views held by Imam Ahmad, none of which he preferred, or whether they are views where the later one abrogated the earlier one, or what else? We ask for clarification on this. May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : The clarification is that the great, independent jurists may have differing independent legal reasoning from one time to another, according to the knowledge that reaches them. A person is human and his capacity is limited; he may have knowledge of a matter at one time, and then it becomes clear to him that the matter is otherwise at another time, either through research and reviewing books, or through discussion. A person may rely on one of the opinions and not think there is an opposing view, but through discussion with the opponent, it becomes clear to him that the truth lies in the opposing view, so he reverts. The result is that if multiple opinions are narrated from Imam Ahmad on an issue, it means that, may Allah have mercy on him, he came to know in the second opinion something he had not known in the first, so he adopted it. Then, do we say that these opinions remain, or do we say that the last one abrogated the first? We say that these opinions remain, because these opinions are the product of independent legal reasoning, and independent legal reasoning is not invalidated by similar independent legal reasoning. It is possible that the truth lies in his first opinion, for example, so these opinions remain. However, if he explicitly stated his reversion from the first opinion, such as his statement, may Allah have mercy on him: "I used to say that the divorce of an intoxicated person is valid, until I realized that if I say the divorce takes place, I commit two things: I forbid it to his first wife and permit it to another husband. And if I say the divorce does not take place, I commit one thing: I permit it to the first husband." This is explicit in that he reverted from his first opinion, so the second opinion is adopted. But if he did not explicitly state this, both opinions are attributed to him, and the second is not an abrogation. It may be said that if he supported the second opinion with an explicit text and provided evidence for it, it is considered a reversion from the first opinion, because an explicit text must be followed. If this is said, it has a valid aspect, and in that case, his second opinion is his school of jurisprudence. And Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : The clarification is that the great, independent jurists may have differing independent legal reasoning from one time to another, according to the knowledge that reaches them. A person is human and his capacity is limited; he may have knowledge of a matter at one time, and then it becomes clear to him that the matter is otherwise at another time, either through research and reviewing books, or through discussion. A person may rely on one of the opinions and not think there is an opposing view, but through discussion with the opponent, it becomes clear to him that the truth lies in the opposing view, so he reverts. The result is that if multiple opinions are narrated from Imam Ahmad on an issue, it means that, may Allah have mercy on him, he came to know in the second opinion something he had not known in the first, so he adopted it. Then, do we say that these opinions remain, or do we say that the last one abrogated the first? We say that these opinions remain, because these opinions are the product of independent legal reasoning, and independent legal reasoning is not invalidated by similar independent legal reasoning. It is possible that the truth lies in his first opinion, for example, so these opinions remain. However, if he explicitly stated his reversion from the first opinion, such as his statement, may Allah have mercy on him: "I used to say that the divorce of an intoxicated person is valid, until I realized that if I say the divorce takes place, I commit two things: I forbid it to his first wife and permit it to another husband. And if I say the divorce does not take place, I commit one thing: I permit it to the first husband." This is explicit in that he reverted from his first opinion, so the second opinion is adopted. But if he did not explicitly state this, both opinions are attributed to him, and the second is not an abrogation. It may be said that if he supported the second opinion with an explicit text and provided evidence for it, it is considered a reversion from the first opinion, because an explicit text must be followed. If this is said, it has a valid aspect, and in that case, his second opinion is his school of jurisprudence. And Allah knows best.