Here - also - a word from Imam Ahmad: "That acting upon a weak hadith is more beloved to me than opinion." So Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah interpreted this word, and behind him Ibn al-Qayyim, and it continued until the scholar Ahmad Shakir (may Allah have mercy on him) also spoke of it, that what is intended by the weak hadith in Ahmad's case is the hasan hadith, and some of them qualified it as hasan for other reasons.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Here - also - a word from Imam Ahmad: "That acting upon a weak hadith is more beloved to me than opinion." So Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah interpreted this word, and behind him Ibn al-Qayyim, and it continued until the scholar Ahmad Shakir (may Allah have mercy on him) also spoke of it, that what is intended by the weak hadith in Ahmad's case is the hasan hadith, and some of them qualified it as hasan for other reasons.
The Shaykh : What do you take me to be preoccupied with by your saying "behind him"? Does this expression mean acceptable, meaning?
The questioner : After him, in this expression there is something, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I mean by saying perhaps it would have been better to be "with him."
The questioner : Because his student, he is behind him or after him.
The Shaykh : Yes, just a word, a word "behind him" means.
The questioner : That he followed him in taqlid.
The Shaykh : I mean.
The questioner : Okay, that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and also his student Shaykh al-Islam Ibn al-Qayyim.
The Shaykh : You have done well.
The questioner : And some of the later scholars.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
The questioner : Said that what is intended by that is the hasan hadith, and some of them distinguished and said hasan for other reasons, because what was with the early ones was only sahih and da'if, there was no hasan with them. Does Shaykh mean by induction and practice that the truth of this statement has become clear to you?
The Shaykh : As for by induction, no, but as for that I am with them, yes.
The questioner : Okay, if we say why, and the word is clear, how is the hasan hadith called weak in Ahmad's case?
The Shaykh : Because they mentioned that the division of hadith into sahih and hasan was not known with them as we say sahih for other reasons and sahih in itself. These terms are late, but they express real matters, and it is necessary. So this real matter, how did the predecessors express it? They would say a sahih hadith, and they would say a weak hadith, meaning some of them before Imam al-Bukhari and his student al-Tirmidhi who popularized this usage came. As long as we cannot, Professor, mistake the early scholars merely by our ignorance, then we have no choice but to accept from them what they say. As long as Ibn Taymiyyah and with him Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and others said that this term sahih hadith and hasan was not known at that time, then it is a sahih hadith or a weak hadith. But this weak, by the late term, became divided into two sections, as we divide hadith into weak and very weak. The apparent in the depths of their souls at that time was that they imagined that in some of the weak hadiths, they are at the level known to us as a hasan hadith. As long as we do not have what to refute this justification or this depiction, it is not permissible for us except to say what they said, because it is agreed upon, as far as I know, that the weak hadith in the terminological meaning that occurred after the division of hadith into sahih and hasan, that the weak hadith in this meaning is not suitable to establish a legal ruling, and it is not suitable to prefer it over the opinion that is spoken of, and what is intended by it, as is not hidden from you, is ijtihad. So there are indications that compel us to accept from these imams what they justified or followed in their negation of that division and their interpretation of Imam Ahmad's word that he intended by the weak hadith what is known to us as the hasan hadith.
The questioner : And this confirms what you established before, that when the scholars mention something or establish it, and we do not have what to refute it or contradict it, then acting upon their words is obligatory until the contrary of their saying appears to us by the words of the scholars also, or by the rules of the scholars.
The Shaykh : It is so, please proceed.
The Shaykh : What do you take me to be preoccupied with by your saying "behind him"? Does this expression mean acceptable, meaning?
The questioner : After him, in this expression there is something, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I mean by saying perhaps it would have been better to be "with him."
The questioner : Because his student, he is behind him or after him.
The Shaykh : Yes, just a word, a word "behind him" means.
The questioner : That he followed him in taqlid.
The Shaykh : I mean.
The questioner : Okay, that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and also his student Shaykh al-Islam Ibn al-Qayyim.
The Shaykh : You have done well.
The questioner : And some of the later scholars.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
The questioner : Said that what is intended by that is the hasan hadith, and some of them distinguished and said hasan for other reasons, because what was with the early ones was only sahih and da'if, there was no hasan with them. Does Shaykh mean by induction and practice that the truth of this statement has become clear to you?
The Shaykh : As for by induction, no, but as for that I am with them, yes.
The questioner : Okay, if we say why, and the word is clear, how is the hasan hadith called weak in Ahmad's case?
The Shaykh : Because they mentioned that the division of hadith into sahih and hasan was not known with them as we say sahih for other reasons and sahih in itself. These terms are late, but they express real matters, and it is necessary. So this real matter, how did the predecessors express it? They would say a sahih hadith, and they would say a weak hadith, meaning some of them before Imam al-Bukhari and his student al-Tirmidhi who popularized this usage came. As long as we cannot, Professor, mistake the early scholars merely by our ignorance, then we have no choice but to accept from them what they say. As long as Ibn Taymiyyah and with him Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and others said that this term sahih hadith and hasan was not known at that time, then it is a sahih hadith or a weak hadith. But this weak, by the late term, became divided into two sections, as we divide hadith into weak and very weak. The apparent in the depths of their souls at that time was that they imagined that in some of the weak hadiths, they are at the level known to us as a hasan hadith. As long as we do not have what to refute this justification or this depiction, it is not permissible for us except to say what they said, because it is agreed upon, as far as I know, that the weak hadith in the terminological meaning that occurred after the division of hadith into sahih and hasan, that the weak hadith in this meaning is not suitable to establish a legal ruling, and it is not suitable to prefer it over the opinion that is spoken of, and what is intended by it, as is not hidden from you, is ijtihad. So there are indications that compel us to accept from these imams what they justified or followed in their negation of that division and their interpretation of Imam Ahmad's word that he intended by the weak hadith what is known to us as the hasan hadith.
The questioner : And this confirms what you established before, that when the scholars mention something or establish it, and we do not have what to refute it or contradict it, then acting upon their words is obligatory until the contrary of their saying appears to us by the words of the scholars also, or by the rules of the scholars.
The Shaykh : It is so, please proceed.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.