What is your opinion of the one who says

The questioner : The hadith scholars established a specific methodology for understanding hadiths.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : So they employed a specific methodology, and the jurists tested the foundations of the jurists.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Is this opinion correct or not, my teacher?

The Shaykh : There is no objection to this. That is, in the science of the principles of hadith, what the jurists know in the science of the principles of jurisprudence, the hadith scholars may not know, and this is a specialization. Each of them benefits from the other. That is, the science of the principles of jurisprudence is what actually helps in understanding hadiths. But when did this happen? This was after foreignness (ajam) infiltrated the Muslims due to the large number of non-Arab Muslims. As for the Companions, they had no need to establish the science of hadith terminology and the science of jurisprudence terminology. But this is also a reality, and there is no blame on the hadith scholars for it, just as there are many, many sciences: the science of exegesis, the science of history, the science of language, and so on. If we find a man specialized in the science of language, we do not blame him, we do not fault him, we do not criticize him for not knowing the science of jurisprudence or the science of hadith. But we blame him and hold him accountable if he relies on his knowledge of the Arabic language and starts to strike blindly in the dark night in authenticating and weakening hadiths, and in understanding verses and hadiths. Here he is criticized. But if he specializes in his field, there is no harm in that. And we believe the following truth: the sciences that the jurists say are collective obligations (fard kifayah) are those that an individual from the Muslim community cannot perform. So this person performs this duty, and this person performs that duty, then they cooperate and become a single block. So if the hadith scholars did not establish guidelines and rules for the jurisprudence of hadith and the understanding of the science of hadith, that is because they were occupied with their specialization in hadith, which is sufficient service for Islam and the Muslims. And in contrast, the jurists of the principles, and then the branch scholars who derive specific issues from the rules and principles, that is the case.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : I think, and Allah knows best, that this statement is intended, as you know, to express the sectarian bias (asabiyyah) that exists there, and the Hanafi sectarian bias. That is, it is intended to belittle the hadith scholars and disparage them. So I say here: if we go back to the early eras, which are the eras of narrating and transmitting hadith and establishing its guidelines and rules, which are still influential today and upon which scholars and students of knowledge live, we also find that those who established the other sciences, such as the science of the principles of jurisprudence and other sciences that help in understanding these texts, were the hadith scholars themselves, such as Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him). He would not have established the science of the principles of jurisprudence were it not for his remarkable ability to understand the Prophetic texts.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Similarly, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) and others came. And it is sufficient for us to say that even if Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), who is the imam of the school of jurisprudence to which these people are fanatically attached, had said so, his statements on this matter are more famous and more widespread than for us to mention them to prove the truth and correctness of his opinion in these issues. He forbade dispensing with hadith in favor of jurisprudence, and he stated that hadith is the broad foundation upon which Islamic jurisprudence was built.