The early scholars did not stipulate that it be based on sensory perception; rather, this appeared in the books of the principles of jurisprudence. What do you say about this?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding the hadith, the mass-transmitted hadith, I went back to the books of the early scholars, such as Imam al-Shafi'i and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in *Al-Kafiyah*, and Ibn Hazm in his book on the principles; I found that they do not stipulate that the mass-transmitted hadith be based on sensory perception?
The Shaykh: To?
The questioner : To sensory perception, but the phrase "the mass-transmitted hadith is based on sensory perception" is found more often in the books of the principles.
The Shaykh : Very well, and what is the result of that?
The questioner : The currently circulating definition.
The Shaykh : The fruit of the definition. This results from the fruit of the definition, whether it is attributed to sensory perception or not. What is the fruit?
The questioner : I mean, did the science of logic and the science of theology enter even into the science of hadith?
The Shaykh : No, it did not enter. These are independent legal reasonings—and peace be upon you. That is, if a scholar adopts a view from one science in another science, it does not mean that one science entered into the other. Rather, it became clear to the scholar of this science that there is a view, such as in the science of the principles, for which the scriptural evidence testifies, so he accepted it. It does not mean that one science entered into the other. But I say: What is the fruit of this disagreement, between the one who generalized and the one who restricted? Because when the narration of hadiths is mass-transmitted, it cannot but return to something tangible. But the whole matter is that the scholars of hadith generalized, while others restricted, as in many matters, as we mention—for example—in the authentic hadith and the weak hadith. They used to divide the hadith into two categories, then some expansion entered into the subject, so they made something called "good" between the authentic hadith and the weak hadith. Then they agreed upon "authentic in itself" and "authentic by other means." This, too, was not known among the early scholars of hadith. And when I say it was not known, I mean as a technical term; otherwise, it was certainly established in their minds. The matter in this is easy.
The Shaykh: To?
The questioner : To sensory perception, but the phrase "the mass-transmitted hadith is based on sensory perception" is found more often in the books of the principles.
The Shaykh : Very well, and what is the result of that?
The questioner : The currently circulating definition.
The Shaykh : The fruit of the definition. This results from the fruit of the definition, whether it is attributed to sensory perception or not. What is the fruit?
The questioner : I mean, did the science of logic and the science of theology enter even into the science of hadith?
The Shaykh : No, it did not enter. These are independent legal reasonings—and peace be upon you. That is, if a scholar adopts a view from one science in another science, it does not mean that one science entered into the other. Rather, it became clear to the scholar of this science that there is a view, such as in the science of the principles, for which the scriptural evidence testifies, so he accepted it. It does not mean that one science entered into the other. But I say: What is the fruit of this disagreement, between the one who generalized and the one who restricted? Because when the narration of hadiths is mass-transmitted, it cannot but return to something tangible. But the whole matter is that the scholars of hadith generalized, while others restricted, as in many matters, as we mention—for example—in the authentic hadith and the weak hadith. They used to divide the hadith into two categories, then some expansion entered into the subject, so they made something called "good" between the authentic hadith and the weak hadith. Then they agreed upon "authentic in itself" and "authentic by other means." This, too, was not known among the early scholars of hadith. And when I say it was not known, I mean as a technical term; otherwise, it was certainly established in their minds. The matter in this is easy.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.