A student's call for a scholarly discussion between Shaykh Al-Albani and Shaykh Ibn Baz on the points of disagreement between them, so that the students' word may be unified.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : O Shaykh, may Allah reward you, why is there no scholarly discussion between you and Shaykh Ibn Baz on the points of disagreement, or on a hadith that you consider weak and he considers good, or vice versa? Why is there no scholarly discussion between you and Shaykh Ibn Baz, or Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, or any of the meticulous scholars, so that a decisive benefit and a complete ruling may emerge from it? This would prevent the youth from focusing on Shaykh Al-Albani's response to this issue and Shaykh Ibn Baz's response to this issue, and having responses and counter-responses among the youth.
The Shaykh : And where are these responses you are referring to?
The questioner : The ones currently in print.
The Shaykh : What is an example?
The questioner : For example, in the hadith of the supplication in the market, you consider it good.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : And Shaykh Ibn Baz considers it weak.
The Shaykh : And where is the weakening?
The questioner : In this hadith.
The Shaykh : Where is the weakening?
The questioner : No, it has not been printed.
The Shaykh : No problem, a mere opinion is not enough. When every person presents his opinion on the carpet of research, the truths will become clear. For example, I tell you: perhaps Shaykh Ibn Baz or others—may Allah bless all the shaykhs—may weaken the hadith from the perspective of a specific chain of narration. If that is mentioned and countered by the one who graded it as good, you will find that this grading as good did not come from the specificity of this chain of narration, but from the specificity of other chains of narration, and the goodness came from the collection of these chains of narration. So, if every person clarifies what knowledge he has, the truths will become clear. As for what you are asking for now, I personally have no objection, and I have lived this whole life ready to meet, but is this a matter that is easily facilitated whenever there is a disagreement in a hadith or a jurisprudential issue between two or two distinguished shaykhs, that they always meet each other and discuss? And do you think that the disagreement between me and Shaykh Ibn Baz is more than the disagreement between me and other shaykhs? What do you think?
The questioner : Between you and others.
The Shaykh : Well, suppose I met him and we agreed on a common word, do I also have to be forced to meet any shaykh I disagree with? This is a wide door that cannot be closed at all. And I want to mention a fact, which is:
That disagreement is a matter we can call natural, and I think you do not understand from the word "natural" that we are natural, but the intended meaning of natural is: the sunnah of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in His creation, as He (Mighty and Majestic) said:[Hud 11:118-119]. If the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) disagreed, and I think you are not in doubt of this, is that so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Why did they not gather, why did they not reconcile, why were they not on one word? This is impossible. The one who demands from scholars in any era that they agree on every issue is demanding the impossible, because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) decreed by His prior cosmic will that there is no room for unity in every issue; this is impossible. And the greatest proof:
The people closest to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in era, understanding, character, and everything to be emulated from him (peace and blessings be upon him) are his Companions. If they disagreed, is it possible for those after them not to disagree?
So, you are trying in vain and asking in vain. But as we say: since the Companions disagreed, there is no room for others not to disagree. We also say another word that must be added to the first, which is:
That they indeed disagreed, but they did not split, did not become enemies, and did not hate each other. Likewise, it is necessary for Muslims in every era and every land, when they disagree on some issues, that this disagreement in issues does not divide them. And the model is: the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
As for accepting disagreement, which is accompanied for many by splitting and mutual hatred, this is not permissible in the Shari'ah. So, the Companions disagreed in their opinions and ideas, but they did not split, and so it must be, and so we are, if Allah wills. It never harms us that one of them considers this hadith good or authentic and the other considers the opposite. This does not harm, with attention to something:
That it is necessary to look at the subject of specialization of each scholar in his science, and the specialist is given his right of appreciation more than others. So, if one is a specialist in tafsir, his opinion is preferred if there is no evidence there to prefer the opinion of others over him, because it is his field of specialization in this science. Likewise, fiqh, likewise, hadith, likewise, language, and so on. If the students of knowledge know these facts, the confusion you are in will disappear from them, and you will stop asking with all that heat: why?!
Because I say: it is not possible, how can we gather?!
I have passed, perhaps, about forty years; after forty years I came to Riyadh for the second time. How can this meeting be as easy as you imagine? And therefore, the important thing in the subject is two basic things:
Every scholar, every researcher, fears Allah in what he goes to, and then every scholar excuses his brother the second scholar, and does not hold a grudge against him or hate him because he disagrees with him in opinion.
The Shaykh : And where are these responses you are referring to?
The questioner : The ones currently in print.
The Shaykh : What is an example?
The questioner : For example, in the hadith of the supplication in the market, you consider it good.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : And Shaykh Ibn Baz considers it weak.
The Shaykh : And where is the weakening?
The questioner : In this hadith.
The Shaykh : Where is the weakening?
The questioner : No, it has not been printed.
The Shaykh : No problem, a mere opinion is not enough. When every person presents his opinion on the carpet of research, the truths will become clear. For example, I tell you: perhaps Shaykh Ibn Baz or others—may Allah bless all the shaykhs—may weaken the hadith from the perspective of a specific chain of narration. If that is mentioned and countered by the one who graded it as good, you will find that this grading as good did not come from the specificity of this chain of narration, but from the specificity of other chains of narration, and the goodness came from the collection of these chains of narration. So, if every person clarifies what knowledge he has, the truths will become clear. As for what you are asking for now, I personally have no objection, and I have lived this whole life ready to meet, but is this a matter that is easily facilitated whenever there is a disagreement in a hadith or a jurisprudential issue between two or two distinguished shaykhs, that they always meet each other and discuss? And do you think that the disagreement between me and Shaykh Ibn Baz is more than the disagreement between me and other shaykhs? What do you think?
The questioner : Between you and others.
The Shaykh : Well, suppose I met him and we agreed on a common word, do I also have to be forced to meet any shaykh I disagree with? This is a wide door that cannot be closed at all. And I want to mention a fact, which is:
That disagreement is a matter we can call natural, and I think you do not understand from the word "natural" that we are natural, but the intended meaning of natural is: the sunnah of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in His creation, as He (Mighty and Majestic) said:
(118) And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ. (119) Except whom your Lord has given mercy, and for that He created them. But the word of your Lord is to be fulfilled that, "I will surely fill Hell with jinn and men all together."
ولو شاء ربك لجعل الناس أمة واحدة ولا يزالون مختلفين * إلا من رحم ربك ولذلك خلقهمThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Why did they not gather, why did they not reconcile, why were they not on one word? This is impossible. The one who demands from scholars in any era that they agree on every issue is demanding the impossible, because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) decreed by His prior cosmic will that there is no room for unity in every issue; this is impossible. And the greatest proof:
The people closest to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in era, understanding, character, and everything to be emulated from him (peace and blessings be upon him) are his Companions. If they disagreed, is it possible for those after them not to disagree?
So, you are trying in vain and asking in vain. But as we say: since the Companions disagreed, there is no room for others not to disagree. We also say another word that must be added to the first, which is:
That they indeed disagreed, but they did not split, did not become enemies, and did not hate each other. Likewise, it is necessary for Muslims in every era and every land, when they disagree on some issues, that this disagreement in issues does not divide them. And the model is: the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
As for accepting disagreement, which is accompanied for many by splitting and mutual hatred, this is not permissible in the Shari'ah. So, the Companions disagreed in their opinions and ideas, but they did not split, and so it must be, and so we are, if Allah wills. It never harms us that one of them considers this hadith good or authentic and the other considers the opposite. This does not harm, with attention to something:
That it is necessary to look at the subject of specialization of each scholar in his science, and the specialist is given his right of appreciation more than others. So, if one is a specialist in tafsir, his opinion is preferred if there is no evidence there to prefer the opinion of others over him, because it is his field of specialization in this science. Likewise, fiqh, likewise, hadith, likewise, language, and so on. If the students of knowledge know these facts, the confusion you are in will disappear from them, and you will stop asking with all that heat: why?!
Because I say: it is not possible, how can we gather?!
I have passed, perhaps, about forty years; after forty years I came to Riyadh for the second time. How can this meeting be as easy as you imagine? And therefore, the important thing in the subject is two basic things:
Every scholar, every researcher, fears Allah in what he goes to, and then every scholar excuses his brother the second scholar, and does not hold a grudge against him or hate him because he disagrees with him in opinion.