What is your opinion of those who say, "We adopt the methodology of the early scholars and abandon the methodology of the later scholars in the terminology of hadith"?

The questioner : They say that the methodology of the early scholars was not... this is the methodology of the later scholars. We adopt the methodology of the early scholars and abandon the methodology of the later scholars.

The Shaykh : All right, what makes them know that the methodology of the early scholars did not use the term "hasan"? What made them know? I answer you: it is that they did not find it. It is that they will not find anyone among the early scholars who used this term. That is their answer. All right, we ask them—and this is evidence of their lack of understanding and jurisprudence—does the absence of finding something indicate the absence of its existence? Yes, does the lack of knowledge of a thing necessitate knowledge of its non-existence? This is your problem, Shaykh Ahmad, pay attention.

The questioner: No...

The Shaykh : Hmm.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : All right, what is your answer, and what is their answer, assuming you hold a good opinion of them and not a bad one? What do they say? Knowledge of a thing necessitates knowledge of its non-existence.

The questioner : No, they do not say that. No one says that.

The Shaykh : But they say
The student : by the language of their state.

The Shaykh : The language of the state is more eloquent than the language of speech, and this is the language of their state: "We do not know that the early scholars used this term." This is their speech. This is not knowledge; this is ignorance. It is something else. What is the dividing line for them? These are the mujtahids of the end of times. What is the dividing line between the early and the later scholars? There is a man who resembles these people, and perhaps his influence spread to them. He is in Saudi Arabia, and he innovated such an innovation, so perhaps he came... What is the dividing line for them? Do you know? You do not know, because they themselves do not know, so how do you know?!

The questioner : They say, some of them say: The dividing line between the early and the later scholars is the beginning of the third century, and they transmitted that, meaning they took that from al-Dhahabi.

The Shaykh : Yes, the beginning of the third century. When was al-Bukhari? Before the beginning of the third century. So their argument is invalid. Then we say to them: Suppose al-Bukhari was after the third century, who established this limit for them? We say to them: Bring your proof if you are truthful. And does this limit that you have innovated on your own permit you to contradict the Sunnah of all the Imams, without exception? By Allah, if one of them or some of them represented Imam Ahmad, the Imam of the Sunnah, and Imam al-Bukhari, who compiled the Sahih and established a good Sunnah for the people, we should hesitate to accept their words as long as the scholars of the Muslims have proceeded on a path other than this. How much more so when they have established this term for us in books.
Then I hope you pay attention, my brother Ahmad, to the fact that this intellectual innovation has no end. This will come upon the entire science of terminology and the entire science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil. And you know, for example, so-and-so is "siddiq" (truthful), "siddiq perhaps he errs," or "perhaps he makes many mistakes," or so-and-so, and so on, of the terms that we cannot mention now, let alone count them.