Answer to the Doubt: "There is no Sunnah without Fiqh."

The Shaykh : The man's stance regarding the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is contrary to what he rambles about in this latest book of his and in others, where he attacks the people of the Sunnah and the people of hadith specifically, both past and present. He claims that these people are not trustworthy in his view, and that fiqh was compiled in a treatise before the Sunnah, saying "There is no Sunnah without fiqh." Have you seen this treatise? It must have come before this latest book.

The questioner : Within his treatise, the concerns of a preacher.

The Shaykh : Ah?

The questioner : Within his book, the concerns of a preacher.

The Shaykh : What is its name?

The questioner : The Concerns of a Preacher, the Great Chapter...

The Shaykh : Yes, some of our brothers responded to him, and he is one of our relatives there in the Emirates, but it was not facilitated for him to publish that article. The important point is that this man is misguided because he has no fiqh, let alone the Sunnah. He says, "There is no Sunnah without fiqh." This statement is clear misguidance. Why? Because the scholars of the Muslims do not differ that fiqh was established based on the Book and the Sunnah, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The Sunnah exists, and it is obligatory for all Muslims to believe in it. There is no doubt that people differ first in their understanding of it, and second in the proper application of it. But to say "There is no Sunnah without fiqh"—he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And in another wording: So the important point is that the bearer of the Sunnah may be a jurist or may not be a jurist. It exists and is established. How can he say "There is no Sunnah without fiqh"? But the opposite is the truth: there is no fiqh without the Sunnah, because any fiqh that is not based on the Sunnah is merely opinion, and opinion is rejected. As Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his *Risalah* in the discussion of analogical reasoning: "Whoever is not knowledgeable of the Sunnah, on what does he base his analogy? On the Book? The Book says:
The point is that this man has no fiqh and no knowledge of the Sunnah. His fiqh is his intellect, and his Sunnah is also his intellect. So whatever pleases him from this or that, he considers it the Shari'ah, and otherwise he rejects it.
So he denied many hadiths, including this hadith: But the truth is that he may be excused in his denial of this hadith, but he is not excused in other hadiths that he began to deny. As for the first hadith that he denied, and I said he may be excused—when I say "may be excused," I mean I am placing it in its proper context. He may be excused, or he may not be excused. Why do I say here "may be excused"? Because he preceded those who attacked the authenticity of this hadith, among whom is the one considered a preserver of hadith, namely al-Hafiz al-Suyuti. He has a treatise on the Noble Parents in which he went to the extent of calling this hadith weak, or even fabricated, just as Ibn al-Jawzi did when he included it in his book of fabrications. And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also ruled that it was fabricated. Oh, the glory of Allah! Al-Suyuti relied on saving the Parents from the ruling that they would be in the Fire, first based on this weak hadith, and then he weakened the authentic hadith. Why did he cling to weakening it? We ask Allah to protect us from bias.