Why is there no scholarly discussion between you and Shaykh Ibn Baz on disputed issues or on a hadith that you consider weak while the Shaykh considers it good?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: O Shaykh, may Allah reward you, why is there no scholarly discussion, for example, between you andThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz on disputed issues or on a hadith that you consider weak andThe Shaykh : he considers good, or vice versa? Why is there no scholarly discussion between you andThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz or...The Shaykh : Ibn Uthaymeen or any of the meticulous scholars, so that a decisive benefit and a complete ruling might be derived from it? This would prevent the youth from focusing on Al-Albani’s response to this issue,The Shaykh : Ibn Baz’s response to this issue, and the exchanges of responses among the youth?The Shaykh: And where are these responses you are referring to?
The Shaykh: The ones currently in print.
The questioner: What is an example?
The Shaykh: For example, in the hadith of the market, the supplication in the market, you consider it good, and
The questioner : Ibn Baz considers it weak.The Shaykh : Ibn Baz considers it weak.
The Shaykh : Where is he?
The questioner : Yes?
The Shaykh: Where is the weakening?
The questioner: In this hadith.
The Shaykh: Where is the weakening?
Another questioner: I mean, has the book been printed?
The questioner: No, no, it has not been printed, but he considers...
The Shaykh: No problem, a mere opinion is not sufficient. When every person presents his opinion on the carpet of research, the record of facts is revealed. Because, for example, I tell you: perhapsThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz or someone else—may Allah bless all the shaykhs—weakens the hadith from the perspective of a specific chain of narration. If that is mentioned and countered by the grading of the one who graded it good, you will find that the good grading did not come from the specificity of this chain, but from the specificity of other chains, and the goodness came from the collection of these chains. So, if every person clarifies what knowledge he has, the facts become clear. As for what you are asking for now, I personally have no objection, and I have lived this entire life ready to meet, but is it feasible that whenever there is a disagreement in a hadith or a fiqh issue between two or two noble shaykhs, they always meet and discuss? And do you think that the disagreement between me andThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz is greater, or is the disagreement between me and other shaykhs greater? What do you think?
The questioner: I see it with the others.
The Shaykh: ... I have met with them and we agreed on a common word. Also, must I be forced to meet with any shaykh I disagree with? This is a wide door that cannot be closed at all. And I want to remind you of a fact, which is that disagreement can be a natural matter. 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 about 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 that scholars in any era be in agreement 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 word in every issue. This is impossible. The greatest proof is that the people closest to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in era, understanding, character, and everything to be emulated are his Companions. If they disagreed, is it possible for those after them not to disagree? So you are trying in vain, and you are asking in vain.
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: But—pardon me—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 did disagree, but they did not separate, nor did they become enemies, nor did they hate each other. Likewise, it is incumbent upon Muslims in every era and every land, when they disagree on some issues, that this disagreement in issues does not separate them. The model is the Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him). As for accepting disagreement with what accompanies it for many, namely separation and mutual hatred, this is not permissible by the Shari'ah. So the Companions disagreed in their opinions and ideas, but they did not separate, and so it must be, and so we are (if Allah wills). It does not harm us at all if one of them considers this hadith good or authentic, and the other considers the opposite. This does not harm, with the note that it is necessary to look at the subject of each scholar’s specialization in his knowledge, so that the specialist is given his right of esteem more than others. So if one is a specialist in tafsir, his opinion is preferred if there is no evidence there that prefers the opinion of others over his, because it is his field of specialization in this knowledge. Likewise in fiqh, likewise in hadith, likewise in language, and so on. If students of knowledge know these facts, the confusion you are in will be removed from them, and you will stop asking with all your heat: Why? Because I say: It is not possible, how can we gather? I have been away for perhaps close to forty years, and after forty years I came to Riyadh a second time; how can this meeting happen with the ease you imagine?
Therefore, the important thing in the matter 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: The ones currently in print.
The questioner: What is an example?
The Shaykh: For example, in the hadith of the market, the supplication in the market, you consider it good, and
The questioner : Ibn Baz considers it weak.The Shaykh : Ibn Baz considers it weak.
The Shaykh : Where is he?
The questioner : Yes?
The Shaykh: Where is the weakening?
The questioner: In this hadith.
The Shaykh: Where is the weakening?
Another questioner: I mean, has the book been printed?
The questioner: No, no, it has not been printed, but he considers...
The Shaykh: No problem, a mere opinion is not sufficient. When every person presents his opinion on the carpet of research, the record of facts is revealed. Because, for example, I tell you: perhapsThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz or someone else—may Allah bless all the shaykhs—weakens the hadith from the perspective of a specific chain of narration. If that is mentioned and countered by the grading of the one who graded it good, you will find that the good grading did not come from the specificity of this chain, but from the specificity of other chains, and the goodness came from the collection of these chains. So, if every person clarifies what knowledge he has, the facts become clear. As for what you are asking for now, I personally have no objection, and I have lived this entire life ready to meet, but is it feasible that whenever there is a disagreement in a hadith or a fiqh issue between two or two noble shaykhs, they always meet and discuss? And do you think that the disagreement between me andThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz is greater, or is the disagreement between me and other shaykhs greater? What do you think?
The questioner: I see it with the others.
The Shaykh: ... I have met with them and we agreed on a common word. Also, must I be forced to meet with any shaykh I disagree with? This is a wide door that cannot be closed at all. And I want to remind you of a fact, which is that disagreement can be a natural matter. 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 ربُّك 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 that scholars in any era be in agreement 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 word in every issue. This is impossible. The greatest proof is that the people closest to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in era, understanding, character, and everything to be emulated are his Companions. If they disagreed, is it possible for those after them not to disagree? So you are trying in vain, and you are asking in vain.
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: But—pardon me—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 did disagree, but they did not separate, nor did they become enemies, nor did they hate each other. Likewise, it is incumbent upon Muslims in every era and every land, when they disagree on some issues, that this disagreement in issues does not separate them. The model is the Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him). As for accepting disagreement with what accompanies it for many, namely separation and mutual hatred, this is not permissible by the Shari'ah. So the Companions disagreed in their opinions and ideas, but they did not separate, and so it must be, and so we are (if Allah wills). It does not harm us at all if one of them considers this hadith good or authentic, and the other considers the opposite. This does not harm, with the note that it is necessary to look at the subject of each scholar’s specialization in his knowledge, so that the specialist is given his right of esteem more than others. So if one is a specialist in tafsir, his opinion is preferred if there is no evidence there that prefers the opinion of others over his, because it is his field of specialization in this knowledge. Likewise in fiqh, likewise in hadith, likewise in language, and so on. If students of knowledge know these facts, the confusion you are in will be removed from them, and you will stop asking with all your heat: Why? Because I say: It is not possible, how can we gather? I have been away for perhaps close to forty years, and after forty years I came to Riyadh a second time; how can this meeting happen with the ease you imagine?
Therefore, the important thing in the matter 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.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.