Is a hadith suitable for reinforcement if it contains more than one defect?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : No, I wanted to ask you, may Allah protect you, about the rule only. Is the hadith...
The Shaykh : And I told you the rule.
The questioner : If it contains more than one defect, is it suitable for reinforcement or not?
The Shaykh : I answered you.
The questioner : So I answered your excellence that it is suitable for reinforcement, even if it contains more than one defect.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : So I said, what is your position in this matter when you say that if a hadith has a defect of being mursal (disconnected from a Companion) and another defect is added to it below the mursal narrator, and the chain to the mursal narrator is not authentic, then it is not suitable for reinforcement. How do we reconcile these two positions? This is my point, that is all.
The Shaykh : This is your point, but you are asking me for my opinion.
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : I tell you my opinion: if the mursal has a weakness in the path to it that is usually rectified, then it is suitable to be strengthened by a connected chain. That is, suppose this mursal came through a connected chain; here the defect of being mursal is removed.
The questioner : Or as a mursal from another angle.
The Shaykh : Let me speak, may Allah bless you. I am the one who wants to give an example so that I can turn my perspective around. This mursal has two defects: being mursal and the weakness of one of the narrators. Suppose this mursal is connected, and it has that weakness from some of the narrators. Is this weakness rectified or not? Now we are talking about the connected chain, not the mursal. So this weakness is rectified, correct?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : So when the mursal hadith, according to many scholars like Malik, Abu Hanifah, and al-Shafi'i with his known condition, and a narration from Imam Ahmad, is not in the same category of weakness as any weak hadith, because it has been found that some have used it as evidence, then in the second scenario where we assumed the mursal is connected, the weakness that is below the mursal remains a weakness that is rectified. So whether it was mursal or it was connected and came connected through another path, the first path is strengthened, whether you assumed it was mursal or assumed it was connected, because the weakness of the mursal is a slight weakness, to the point that some who affirmed its validity, as I hinted at earlier.
If I were to say, or if I were to proceed on this principle in some of the hadiths, and if I were to proceed in some of the hadiths contrary to what you are hearing from me now, then this would be an error in applying the principle, and it does not mean that I am saying the principle is the opposite of that. Every scholar, whether his knowledge is in hadith or in fiqh, sometimes gives an example that contradicts the principle he was following. Either it is an excuse and an exception to the principle from its generality, and for some reason it was said "There is no general statement that has not been specified", or it is a mistake on his part in applying the principle.
The questioner : I think the mistake is from you, because you have done it a lot in your books.
The Shaykh : Okay, here you are, may Allah bless you. A claim without evidence is not sufficient. First, you claimed in your response to Maududi, and I am as certain as I can be that Maududi did not bring an addition to that hadith. It is mursal from one side and has weakness below, and then it came connected.
The questioner : No, it did not come connected. It might be...
The Shaykh : You claimed it like that.
The questioner : Okay, it came mursal. I do not want to investigate this point, O Shaykh. I want to investigate a specific detail.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. Why did you mention Maududi? Is it not to prove...
The questioner : You asked me about the location, and I said in your response to Maududi, that is all.
The Shaykh : Yes, but this is not a proof, because in my response to Maududi, I used as evidence a mursal, which is the mursal of Qatadah and the mu'dal of Ibn Jurayj.
The questioner : Very well.
The Shaykh : You said that I weakened it, even though it came...
The questioner : In the mursal of Qatadah, you mentioned this point.
The Shaykh : There is no power or strength except in Allah. The basis of your claim, O Shaykh Sa'd, is that debate does not proceed like this. The basis of your claim, at least as I understood it, is that you attribute to me that I contradicted the rule that I am mentioning now.
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Do you see? I hope you will not rush me.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Where did I contradict the rule? I said when I responded to Maududi, meaning that Maududi authenticated or used as evidence an addition, and it came mursal and it came connected, but the mursal has weakness from the bottom, and therefore I did not rely on the connected one. This was your statement. So then...
The questioner : Please, please.
The Shaykh : Let us turn the page and say, may Allah forgive what has passed.
The questioner : Please, O Shaykh. Now, the mursal hadith that we want to use to reinforce another path, is the other path the same whether it is mursal from another angle or connected and has weakness, or not?
The Shaykh : I said this.
The questioner : Okay, this is now the crux of the discussion.
The Shaykh : As for you, may Allah bless you, you are repeating what I said to you. I gave you the example of the mursal with two defects: being mursal and the weakness of one of the narrators.
The questioner : Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : So I assumed, as I told you earlier, that this mursal came connected from the same path of the weak narrator. Did I not say this?
The questioner : It is not a condition.
The Shaykh : There is no power or strength except in Allah. I am telling you, is it a condition or not?
The questioner : I know what you are saying, O Shaykh, and this is not the crux of the discussion. May Allah guide you.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide us and you.
The questioner : And you likewise
The Shaykh : O Allah, amen. That is enough. Let us go.
The Shaykh : And I told you the rule.
The questioner : If it contains more than one defect, is it suitable for reinforcement or not?
The Shaykh : I answered you.
The questioner : So I answered your excellence that it is suitable for reinforcement, even if it contains more than one defect.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : So I said, what is your position in this matter when you say that if a hadith has a defect of being mursal (disconnected from a Companion) and another defect is added to it below the mursal narrator, and the chain to the mursal narrator is not authentic, then it is not suitable for reinforcement. How do we reconcile these two positions? This is my point, that is all.
The Shaykh : This is your point, but you are asking me for my opinion.
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : I tell you my opinion: if the mursal has a weakness in the path to it that is usually rectified, then it is suitable to be strengthened by a connected chain. That is, suppose this mursal came through a connected chain; here the defect of being mursal is removed.
The questioner : Or as a mursal from another angle.
The Shaykh : Let me speak, may Allah bless you. I am the one who wants to give an example so that I can turn my perspective around. This mursal has two defects: being mursal and the weakness of one of the narrators. Suppose this mursal is connected, and it has that weakness from some of the narrators. Is this weakness rectified or not? Now we are talking about the connected chain, not the mursal. So this weakness is rectified, correct?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : So when the mursal hadith, according to many scholars like Malik, Abu Hanifah, and al-Shafi'i with his known condition, and a narration from Imam Ahmad, is not in the same category of weakness as any weak hadith, because it has been found that some have used it as evidence, then in the second scenario where we assumed the mursal is connected, the weakness that is below the mursal remains a weakness that is rectified. So whether it was mursal or it was connected and came connected through another path, the first path is strengthened, whether you assumed it was mursal or assumed it was connected, because the weakness of the mursal is a slight weakness, to the point that some who affirmed its validity, as I hinted at earlier.
If I were to say, or if I were to proceed on this principle in some of the hadiths, and if I were to proceed in some of the hadiths contrary to what you are hearing from me now, then this would be an error in applying the principle, and it does not mean that I am saying the principle is the opposite of that. Every scholar, whether his knowledge is in hadith or in fiqh, sometimes gives an example that contradicts the principle he was following. Either it is an excuse and an exception to the principle from its generality, and for some reason it was said "There is no general statement that has not been specified", or it is a mistake on his part in applying the principle.
The questioner : I think the mistake is from you, because you have done it a lot in your books.
The Shaykh : Okay, here you are, may Allah bless you. A claim without evidence is not sufficient. First, you claimed in your response to Maududi, and I am as certain as I can be that Maududi did not bring an addition to that hadith. It is mursal from one side and has weakness below, and then it came connected.
The questioner : No, it did not come connected. It might be...
The Shaykh : You claimed it like that.
The questioner : Okay, it came mursal. I do not want to investigate this point, O Shaykh. I want to investigate a specific detail.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. Why did you mention Maududi? Is it not to prove...
The questioner : You asked me about the location, and I said in your response to Maududi, that is all.
The Shaykh : Yes, but this is not a proof, because in my response to Maududi, I used as evidence a mursal, which is the mursal of Qatadah and the mu'dal of Ibn Jurayj.
The questioner : Very well.
The Shaykh : You said that I weakened it, even though it came...
The questioner : In the mursal of Qatadah, you mentioned this point.
The Shaykh : There is no power or strength except in Allah. The basis of your claim, O Shaykh Sa'd, is that debate does not proceed like this. The basis of your claim, at least as I understood it, is that you attribute to me that I contradicted the rule that I am mentioning now.
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Do you see? I hope you will not rush me.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Where did I contradict the rule? I said when I responded to Maududi, meaning that Maududi authenticated or used as evidence an addition, and it came mursal and it came connected, but the mursal has weakness from the bottom, and therefore I did not rely on the connected one. This was your statement. So then...
The questioner : Please, please.
The Shaykh : Let us turn the page and say, may Allah forgive what has passed.
The questioner : Please, O Shaykh. Now, the mursal hadith that we want to use to reinforce another path, is the other path the same whether it is mursal from another angle or connected and has weakness, or not?
The Shaykh : I said this.
The questioner : Okay, this is now the crux of the discussion.
The Shaykh : As for you, may Allah bless you, you are repeating what I said to you. I gave you the example of the mursal with two defects: being mursal and the weakness of one of the narrators.
The questioner : Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : So I assumed, as I told you earlier, that this mursal came connected from the same path of the weak narrator. Did I not say this?
The questioner : It is not a condition.
The Shaykh : There is no power or strength except in Allah. I am telling you, is it a condition or not?
The questioner : I know what you are saying, O Shaykh, and this is not the crux of the discussion. May Allah guide you.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide us and you.
The questioner : And you likewise
The Shaykh : O Allah, amen. That is enough. Let us go.