Is it reported from the Hanafis in the principles of jurisprudence that they prioritized analogical reasoning over explicit texts?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : All right; there is another question: Is it reported from the Hanafis in the principles of jurisprudence that they prioritized analogical reasoning over explicit texts, as in ...?
The Shaykh : The author is a Hanafi.
The questioner : The author is a man of good character, with responses here, but he details the opinions.
The Shaykh : Did he respond to it?
The questioner : He responded to it.
The Shaykh : ... meaning there is no need to cite these opinions and confuse the students of knowledge and their thoughts, and then ... respond to them.
Another questioner : The essence, meaning.
The Shaykh : Yes?
Another questioner : Presenting the essence.
The Shaykh : Ah. In which year is this?
The questioner : This is a doctor at the Islamic University, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Abd al-Latif.
The Shaykh : No problem, in which year does he teach this?
Another questioner : The course.
The questioner : I do not remember, but I took it from him ... he says it is reported from the Hanafis ... a side question.
The Shaykh : And whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized, meaning as if it is established with us that a narrator was asked about a hadith and he denied it, then he was asked about this hadith after a time and he affirmed it, so in the second instance he has an increase of knowledge over the first instance, so the increase is accepted by belief and he is trustworthy, this is in one person, the same rule is applied to two people, the narrator of the hadith who forgot it, and the narrator from him before the first narrator's period of forgetting, so if the narrator from the forgetful one is trustworthy and precise, then whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized, and it is not argued with the first narrator's denial of the hadith; because it is due to what befell him of forgetting, otherwise we would have to accuse the trustworthy one for nothing, it is only forgetting, meaning the trustworthy one who preserved the hadith, I - for example - heard the hadith from you, you say: No, I did not narrate this, one of two things must be the case; either you are accused of forgetting or you are accused of attributing forgetting to me, or I am accused of what? Of an error on the trustworthy one, and this is not permissible; because it is said: whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized, and therefore this phrase is not accepted in its absolute form.
The questioner : He responded to him.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: A refutation of him.
The Shaykh : He responded to him?
The questioner : Yes, these Hanafis gave a strange example ... regarding testimony, if the original is denied ... it is dropped ... and this is strange, and he responded.The Shaykh : What does it say? "For the two conditions are not required according to the stronger opinion due to the abundance of evidence for accepting the report of a single trustworthy person, and because denial in the form of forgetting is not a denial of the occurrence of narration, but its limit is the lack of remembering, so the statement of the affirmer is prioritized; because he is certain in what he narrates from his sheikh"; meaning ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Does this mean cutting off the narration or ... on the narrator?
The Shaykh : According to the previous detail.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : According to the previous detail, if he is ... precise and a memorizer, his narration is accepted; whether he is certain or not certain.
The Shaykh : The author is a Hanafi.
The questioner : The author is a man of good character, with responses here, but he details the opinions.
The Shaykh : Did he respond to it?
The questioner : He responded to it.
The Shaykh : ... meaning there is no need to cite these opinions and confuse the students of knowledge and their thoughts, and then ... respond to them.
Another questioner : The essence, meaning.
The Shaykh : Yes?
Another questioner : Presenting the essence.
The Shaykh : Ah. In which year is this?
The questioner : This is a doctor at the Islamic University, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Abd al-Latif.
The Shaykh : No problem, in which year does he teach this?
Another questioner : The course.
The questioner : I do not remember, but I took it from him ... he says it is reported from the Hanafis ... a side question.
The Shaykh : And whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized, meaning as if it is established with us that a narrator was asked about a hadith and he denied it, then he was asked about this hadith after a time and he affirmed it, so in the second instance he has an increase of knowledge over the first instance, so the increase is accepted by belief and he is trustworthy, this is in one person, the same rule is applied to two people, the narrator of the hadith who forgot it, and the narrator from him before the first narrator's period of forgetting, so if the narrator from the forgetful one is trustworthy and precise, then whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized, and it is not argued with the first narrator's denial of the hadith; because it is due to what befell him of forgetting, otherwise we would have to accuse the trustworthy one for nothing, it is only forgetting, meaning the trustworthy one who preserved the hadith, I - for example - heard the hadith from you, you say: No, I did not narrate this, one of two things must be the case; either you are accused of forgetting or you are accused of attributing forgetting to me, or I am accused of what? Of an error on the trustworthy one, and this is not permissible; because it is said: whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized, and therefore this phrase is not accepted in its absolute form.
The questioner : He responded to him.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: A refutation of him.
The Shaykh : He responded to him?
The questioner : Yes, these Hanafis gave a strange example ... regarding testimony, if the original is denied ... it is dropped ... and this is strange, and he responded.The Shaykh : What does it say? "For the two conditions are not required according to the stronger opinion due to the abundance of evidence for accepting the report of a single trustworthy person, and because denial in the form of forgetting is not a denial of the occurrence of narration, but its limit is the lack of remembering, so the statement of the affirmer is prioritized; because he is certain in what he narrates from his sheikh"; meaning ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Does this mean cutting off the narration or ... on the narrator?
The Shaykh : According to the previous detail.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : According to the previous detail, if he is ... precise and a memorizer, his narration is accepted; whether he is certain or not certain.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.