What is the meaning of al-Iraqi's statement: "It does not follow that because a thing has a valid basis, it is itself valid"? And what is the concept of their saying: "the basis of the hadith"?

The questioner : What is the meaning of al-Iraqi's statement: "It does not follow that because a thing has a valid basis, it is itself valid"? And what is the concept of their saying: "the basis of the hadith"?

The Shaykh : This is an important question in reality for students of knowledge in general, and for students of the terminology of hadith in particular. We give an example to understand this statement. It is said regarding a hadith narrated by so-and-so and so-and-so that its basis is in "Sahih al-Bukhari"; meaning: this hadith in its entirety is not in "Sahih al-Bukhari," but rather its basis—meaning a portion of it, and especially, in most cases, from its beginning—is in "Sahih al-Bukhari." As for it in its entirety, it is in our hadith methodology attributed to it in its completeness, but its basis is in "Sahih al-Bukhari." We give an example to clarify this and to alert many people who do not care about performing the invocations and dhikr that came from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as they came, without addition or subtraction. It is customary for these people that when they are told that there is an addition in the narration, dhikr, or supplication that is not established, they say to you: "My brother, what is the harm? An addition of good is good!" An example of what many people fall into is that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said; and the hadith is in "Sahih al-Bukhari" from the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This is how the hadith is in "Sahih al-Bukhari," and this is how the hadith is in other than one book from the books of Imam al-Bukhari, for example, the book "Creation of the Actions of Servants" by Imam al-Bukhari. This hadith came in "Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra" through the route of Imam al-Bukhari with an addition at the end of the supplication, which is: . And you hear people today adhering to this addition, to the point that hardly anyone stops at his (peace be upon him) saying: . They do not stop here, but rather they add: . If we want to say in the takhrij of this hadith: "It was narrated by Imam al-Bayhaqi in his 'Sunan,' and its basis is in 'Sahih al-Bukhari,'" this is an example; meaning: that there is not in "Sahih al-Bukhari" the addition: . And based on that, measure and understand this phrase that he mentioned.The questioner : Quoted from al-Hafiz al-Iraqi.

The questioner : Meaning the addition is established, O Shaykh...?

The Shaykh : The addition is shadh (anomalous), and we have evidence for that which we discussed in detail—as I think—in "Irwaa' al-Ghalil." But what comes to my mind as I answer this question is that the hadith—as you heard just now—was narrated by al-Bukhari in his "Sahih" and he also narrated it in "Creation of the Actions of Servants." Why did I mention the book "Actions of Servants" when it is not from the Sahih and he narrates in it what is valid and what is not valid, like his other books in which he did not adhere to validity, such as his famous book "Al-Adab al-Mufrad" by Imam al-Bukhari, where he narrates what is valid and what is not valid? Why did I add to his saying "al-Bukhari narrated it in his 'Sahih'": "and he also narrated it in his book 'Creation of the Actions of Servants'"?
To draw your attention to the fact that in both books he did not narrate the hadith with this addition that al-Bayhaqi narrated in his "Sunan" through the route of al-Bukhari himself, or perhaps I am correcting myself now: through the route of al-Bukhari's shaykh. So al-Bukhari's narration of this hadith in his two books is without this addition. That is one of the evidences that this addition is not established. It is narrated in "Sunan al-Bayhaqi," but it is shadh (anomalous), because al-Bukhari in his book, and because Imam Ahmad also narrated this hadith without the addition, and many narrators and imams extracted the hadith as it came in "Sahih al-Bukhari" and in "Creation of the Actions of Servants." So the hadith is valid without the addition. And if the one who mentions the hadith with the addition attributes it to al-Bayhaqi, he may say: "Its basis is in 'Sahih al-Bukhari'"; meaning: that this hadith has an existence in "Sahih al-Bukhari" but not in this completeness.
This is what a person says when the situation does not allow him to detail the speech. But the truth—and the truth must be said—is that such a statement does not satisfy or suffice to say "its basis is in 'Sahih al-Bukhari'" as an indication of the speaker's distinction. Therefore, clarification drives away the Shaytan. Instead of saying: "Its basis is in al-Bukhari," he should say: "And it is in 'Sahih al-Bukhari' without this addition." This is clearer and further from confusion and from bad suspicion of the words of this Imam who says: "So-and-so narrated it and its basis is in 'Sahih al-Bukhari.'" It is better to be explicit than to hint.
On this occasion, we alert you to an example similar to this, and it is necessary for students of knowledge to know and understand it. It is established in the books of hadith terminology that it is not permissible to narrate a hadith with a formulation that suggests the validity of the hadith. So it is not said regarding a weak hadith: "The Messenger of Allah said," or "It came from the Messenger of Allah," or "The Messenger of Allah used to do so and so," and the like. Rather, they said: It is only said regarding a weak hadith: "It was narrated," "It was preserved," "It was mentioned," and the like of forms of weakening based on the passive voice. This is a settled matter in the books of terminology. My personal opinion, which I have not seen anyone precede me in, and I hope it is correct, is because the scholars say—and this is another benefit I am alerting you to: "Rulings change with the change of time and place." This rule is very short if stated like this: "Rulings change with the change of time and place." The correct form of this rule is: "The derived rulings—derived by the ijtihad of the imams, and not the rulings that came explicitly in the Book of Allah and in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah; these rulings, far be it that they fall under this rule which says: 'Rulings change with the change of time and place.' Rather, these rulings are the rulings that the imams said by derivation and ijtihad, because derivation is first exposed to error and correctness, unlike what is explicitly stated in the Book and the Sunnah. And secondly, these rulings that were said by ijtihad and derivation took into account during the ijtihad and derivation the situation in which people were or upon which they were; so these rulings were placed to be appropriate for that time.
It is perhaps useful to give an example that is somewhat strange, and clarifies how rulings change with the change of time and place with the previous qualification: the rulings that are said by derivation and ijtihad and not based on the explicit text. It came in "Sharh al-Wajiz" by Imam al-Rafi'i, from the relied-upon books of the Shafi'is, the text of which is: "If a man prays in a swing—pay attention to what he says—that is not supported by the ground nor suspended from the ceiling." Have you heard of this swing? It is not resting on the ground nor is it suspended in the ceiling. If he prays in such a swing, this noble Imam said: "The prayer is invalid." Why? Because he is praying in the void. "If he prays in a swing that is not supported by the ground nor suspended from the ceiling, the prayer is invalid." Now, this swing was created by Allah as He (Mighty and Majestic) indicated: . Do you know what this swing is? The known airplane, specifically the "helicopter," which hovers above heads, does not move, does not descend or ascend, does not go right or left. Do you think if this speaker of that word were in the present age, would he say that prayer in the airplane is invalid? He would not say that. He imagined something that he conceived would become a real fact!
That is why I found myself in the disputes and debates I had with some of the scholars of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) in our country, Syria. I visited a town in northern Syria for the first time in the course of conveying the da'wah (calling others to Islam) from one place to another. A group of people, as Allah willed, gathered in the place where I stayed, and among them was the mufti (a scholar who issues fatwas) of the town. Naturally, that mufti practiced taqlid, issuing rulings based on his Shafi'i school of jurisprudence. He began with some pleasant words of welcome and polite conversation, but he was laying the groundwork for subtle criticism. Finally, he said: "We have heard that you do not practice taqlid and that you engage in ijtihad (independent legal reasoning)." We got into a discussion, and I will not dwell on the details. I said to him: "O Shaykh, we are now in an era where new matters and issues have arisen, and a person may not find an explicit answer to such a new issue in the books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). So what does he do?" I meant to say to him: "Ijtihad is necessary." Opening the door to ijtihad is a mercy from Allah, and closing it is as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to that Bedouin who urinated in his mosque. Then, as part of his error or misguidance, as it came in the hadith, when he was angry with the Companions of the Messenger who were about to beat him when they saw him urinating in the Prophet's Mosque, he said to them (peace and blessings be upon him): . They left him alone until he relieved himself in the Prophet's Mosque—urine! Part of his error and ignorance was that after the prayer, he supplicated to his Lord as if venting the anger in his heart at the Companions of the Messenger who had been about to harm him. He said: "O Allah, have mercy on me and on Muhammad, and do not share us with anyone in Your mercy." He meant those with hard hearts who had been about to harm him, saying, "Do not share them in mercy." He said to him (peace and blessings be upon him): .
And these are the ones who restricted the Muslim ummah, forbade ijtihad, and claimed that its door was closed since the fourth century of the Hijrah! I said to thisThe Shaykh : How do you handle some of the issues that befall Muslims today? He said to me: "For example?"—and here is the point—I said: "For example, prayer on an airplane. What do you say? Is it valid or not?" He answered immediately and off the top of his head with the correct answer: "It is valid." I said to him: "What is the evidence?" He said: "By analogy (qiyas) to prayer on a ship." I said: "Now you have fallen into what you blame me for." He said: "How?" I said: "You engaged in ijtihad. Who among the scholars before you said that prayer on an airplane is permissible first, and then what is the evidence for that analogy to prayer on an airplane—on a ship?" The man was left speechless. I said: "And it is amazing that you erred where you were correct. It is contradictory speech, of course!" He was surprised by this, and I meant what I said. He said: "How?" I said: "When you engaged in ijtihad, you were correct, but if you had practiced taqlid, you would have erred!" He said: "I did not err." I then mentioned the previous phrase. I said: "Imam al-Rafi'i said in his book *al-Sharh al-Wajiz*: . This is the airplane. So if you had followed this Imam, you would have said that the prayer is not valid. Do you see how ijtihad is a mercy and not a curse?" He said: "I did not find this phrase." I said: "It has been said: 'He who knows is an argument over he who does not know, and he who memorizes is an argument over he who does not memorize.' Here is the book *Sharh al-Wajiz* by al-Rafi'i, printed in the marginal notes of *al-Majmu'* by Imam al-Nawawi. You can..."