In the hadith of Abu Dawud: (Nothing breaks the prayer), is Majdal in it?

The questioner : In the hadith of Abu Dawud: "Nothing breaks the prayer," is Majdal in it?

The Shaykh: What is it?

The questioner : The hadith is from the Prophet (peace be upon him) .

The Shaykh : Yes ?

The questioner : Majdal is in it. Ibn Hajar described him as weak, and a group of trustworthy scholars said he is weak. He has a corroborating narration in al-Daraqutni, and it is good; so what is your opinion?

The Shaykh: And what is it?

The questioner : Good, the hadith is good.

The Shaykh : The corroborating narration, you mean?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Is the corroborating narration itself good?

The questioner : Yes, in al-Daraqutni.

The Shaykh : Who said it is good?

The questioner : Ibn Hajar said: And it has a corroborating narration in al-Daraqutni.

The Shaykh : And is the chain of this corroborating narration good according to Ibn Hajar?

The questioner : He said it is good, like this.

The Shaykh : No, I want to understand the critique first; does Ibn Hajar consider the chain of the corroborating narration good in itself, or does he consider the text of the hadith good due to the corroborating narration?

The questioner : He said it has a corroborating narration in al-Daraqutni, and he mentioned , and it is good, the hadith is good, like this, or as he said?

Another questioner : ... in al-Daraqutni,The Shaykh : He is asking whether he said it has a good corroborating narration, or he said it has a corroborating narration, and it is good?

The questioner : He said it has a corroborating narration, and he mentioned al-Daraqutni, and it is good.

The Shaykh : And "it" means the hadith is good.

Another questioner : It seems he is saying: The hadith in al-Daraqutni is good.

The Shaykh : In any case, I will answer now with a definitive answer and another conditional answer.

Another questioner: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh- And upon you be peace -.
The conditional answer: That when I studied the hadith: , which is in "Sunan Abu Dawud" which I began editing about forty years ago, and divided it into "Sahih Abu Dawud" and "Da'if Abu Dawud"; from that day to this hour; this hadith is from the portion of "Da'if Sunan Abu Dawud," and nothing has appeared to me that enables me to consider it good, even due to other evidence, as may have been the intention of the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar. This is the answer based on the previous research and verification.
I say now - after I had read the treatise "Al-Muwakkizah" by al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, which is a manuscript in the Zahiriyyah Library - : I found it - Subhan Allah! - expressing a precise and very precise issue, which I felt in my self, or in the depths of my soul, but I did not find anyone from the scholars of hadith and its terminology who explicitly stated it, until I saw al-Dhahabi explicitly stating this which was circulating in my mind; which is: that the good hadith is one of the most precise sciences of hadith; because the one man or the one scholar hesitates in his judgment regarding the narrator of the good hadith, sometimes he considers him good, and sometimes he considers him weak, the hadith is one, and the narrator is one, why? We know by experience why; because when we find a narrator about whom the scholars' views differed between authenticating, weakening, and intermediate, the soul may sometimes, after studying what was said about this narrator, lean toward the middle, saying he is not trustworthy, and not weak, but rather intermediate; so his hadith is good. Another review may come after years or less or more, and this same researcher descends from the middle to the rank of weakness; he says: this is weak, so he considers the hadith good in the past based on the previous study, and weak in the present based on the subsequent study, and the subject is one, and the researcher is one. This is said entirely regarding the good hadith due to other evidence, when a person wants to consider a hadith good due to other evidence; the meaning of that is that he departs from the objective study of the chain of this hadith specifically, if he encompasses this hadith.
And now look with me how a hadith can be considered good due to other evidence, and there is something contradicting it, such as the authentic hadith: , the hadith in "Sahih Muslim" from the narration of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, so here two hadiths contradict, one is negating, which is the hadith of Abu Dawud, and the other is affirming, which is the hadith of Muslim.
First: The known rule "The affirming is preferred over the negating."
Second: What Muslim narrated is generally more trustworthy than what others narrated; such as Abu Dawud.
Third: What Abu Dawud narrated contains, as I said, Majdal ibn Sa'id, and he is not strong as Ibn Hajar says in "Al-Taqrib," and it is so, so how can we consider the hadith: good, with the establishment that the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: , and so on, then suppose that the hadith of Abu Dawud is authentic, not just good, and not authentic due to other evidence, but let us assume that its chain is the most authentic; so how to reconcile between a hadith that negates and a hadith that affirms?
This is what the scholars of hadith addressed in their terminology, as the scholars of usul addressed it in the principles of jurisprudence; they said: "If a prohibiting and a permitting contradict, the prohibiting is preferred over the permitting," if a hadith carrying a new legislation contradicts a hadith based on the presumption of innocence and the original state, which is permissibility; at that time, the hadith that carries a new ruling in its depths is preferred, and we imagine this reality entirely in all the rulings of the Shari'ah, when he (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent, he was sent with the oneness of Allah, and practical rulings like prayer and fasting and the like did not descend upon him directly, but they came gradually, likewise what relates specifically to prayer and its rulings, not all the rulings of prayer came with the obligation of prayer, perhaps you remember with me that the first Muslims when they were praying, one of them would speak in the prayer, and I remember well that one of the stages of legislation was that a man would enter the mosque, and find the people standing in prayer, so he would stand in the row and say to the one next to him: Is this rak'ah the first or the second? An ordinary hadith, meaning, until Mu'adh ibn Jabal came one day and entered the mosque, and followed, then the Messenger (peace be upon him) said the closing salam, so he stood and completed his prayer, so he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , and from here came the well-known hadith in "the two Sahihs" from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , and His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He) - this is not from the completion of this hadith but another hadith - : , so the speech that they knew before was forbidden, and more deserving of prohibition than this speech that was permissible was that one of them would greet the one praying: "Peace be upon you"; he would return the greeting with the words: "And upon you be peace," as we do today outside of prayer, so Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said that when he returned from Abyssinia, and met the Messenger, the first thing he met him with, and he was praying, so he said: Peace be upon you. He said: So he did not return my greeting, so I was seized by what was near and what was far, and when he (peace and blessings be upon him) completed his prayer, he said: , so your saying to the one praying at that time "Peace be upon you" and his returning with "And upon you be peace" ... was permissible; because it is on the original state, and on the original presumption of innocence as al-Shawkani says in his book "Irsad al-Fuhul ila 'Ilm al-Usul," the original presumption of innocence, this is a rule that should be referred to in many cases, so now we have a hadith that we assumed is authentic in itself: , and another hadith: ; do we strike one with the other and say that breaking the prayer is abrogated, and its abrogator is that nothing breaks the prayer?
We say, as the scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) or the two principles—namely, the principles of hadith and the principles of fiqh—say: One only resorts to claiming abrogation between two conflicting reports when it is not possible to reconcile them by any of the many methods of reconciliation. Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi, in his commentary on Ibn al-Salah’s *Introduction to the Sciences of Hadith*, mentioned more than one hundred ways to reconcile two conflicting texts. More than one hundred ways exist to reconcile two conflicting texts. If all these methods are exhausted and none of them allows for the reconciliation of two conflicting hadiths, then, as Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar indicated in *Sharh al-Nukhba*, one proceeds to the claim of abrogation, tracing the abrogating text to the abrogated one if possible. He said: If that is not possible, one proceeds to preference (tarjih), saying: This one is hasan (good) and this one is sahih (authentic); it is not possible to claim abrogation because we have no date for them. So we say this one is more authentic than that one, and we take the more authentic one and leave the authentic one. If they are equal in authenticity, then the matter becomes narrow, and they said it is obligatory to leave the matter and the knowledge to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). So, is the matter between these two hadiths—the first being authentic by assumption, and the other being authentic in reality—has it reached the point where we say one of them is abrogating?
The answer is no, because one of them is general and the other is specific. One is a general text, and the other is a specific text. So we specify the general with the specific, and this is a well-known rule among all scholars. There are many examples of this, not only in the Sunnah, but in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. How many hadiths have restricted the absolute meanings of the texts of the Qur'an! And how many hadiths have specified the general verses in the Noble Qur'an! If this is the case between the Qur'an and the Sunnah, should it not be the same between a hadith we assume to be authentic and another hadith that is authentic in reality? It is necessary to reconcile them, and it is not permissible to strike one with the other and say, for example, the hadith: invalidates the hadith: ?
No, we do not say that, because it is possible to reconcile them. It is even more fitting and more necessary that a student of knowledge—who may have lived in a specific madhhab (school of jurisprudence)—should not say that this hadith, which was graded hasan (good) by some, is general. A student of knowledge may have been influenced by a madhhab that adopted the generality of this hadith. So what is his position regarding the hadith: and so on? It does not concern him to define his position toward this authentic hadith; what matters to him is to find a support for his madhhab, and this is the hadith. Ibn Hajar graded it hasan, and it does not concern me now to be precise about it, because there is no way to do so. Was his grading for its own sake or for another reason? Then it does not concern us even if it is established that his grading was for its own sake, because we assumed it is authentic for its own sake. Does it contradict the hadith: ?
The answer is no. The reconciliation is that this is a general text and that is a specific text, and the specific text overrides the general text, assuming it is authentic. If it is not authentic in reality, then we say, as some people in some lands say, "This deceased person does not deserve this condolence," so it is a weak hadith, and we give it no weight against the authentic hadith. As for the scholarly discussion, it is like this: The hadith is authentic from a hadith perspective, there is no harm in that. You have your madhhab if you fear Allah in that. But fear Allah in the fiqh aspect: What do you do with the hadith: ? You must define your position toward it. There is no way to a Sharia-based definition except to say: If this hadith is authentic, then it is general and that one is specific, and the specific overrides the general.
And to conclude, I present to you this path based on the scientific methodology of hadith and fiqh, with a verse from the Qur'an and a hadith from the Messenger (peace be upon him), and how it is not permissible to rely on generalities as long as they have been subjected to specification. We read in the words of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): to the end of the verse. And we read in what we read of the hadiths of the Messenger (peace be upon him): . Do we strike this hadith, while I say beforehand that there is a difference in its establishment? Although the stronger position (rajih) with us is that it is authentic as a mawquf (report stopping at a Companion) from Ibn 'Umar, and it is in the ruling of marfu' (traced to the Prophet), because it is not said by mere opinion. Especially since part of this text was found to have a corroborating narration (shahid) in *Sahih Muslim* in the story of Abu 'Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah when he went out as a mujahid in the path of Allah, and the dates they had ran out and they became hungry, so Allah (Mighty and Majestic) cast upon the shore of the Red Sea a very large fish, and they ate from it and provisioned themselves from it—to the end of the story—and it was dead. So it is a corroborating narration, but it is a limited corroborating narration, because it testifies to part of Ibn 'Umar's hadith, not to its entirety. So let us stop at this authentic hadith in Muslim. This is carrion, so how was it eaten when Allah says: ?
The answer is that the scholars specified the verse or restricted it with this hadith in *Sahih Muslim*, and with that hadith found in the *Sunan*, which is established in the stronger position with us. If it is permissible to specify the generality of the Qur'an or restrict the absolute meaning of the Qur'an with a hadith from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then it is even more fitting and more permissible to specify the generality of a hadith with a specific hadith. This is the end of the discussion regarding this hadith.
YesThe Shaykh : 'Abd al-Muhsin has something, so let him please proceed.