Distinguishing between the younger and older Tabi'un in accepting a narrator's report; does this have any meaning?

The questioner : My Shaykh, sometimes there is a distinction made between the younger Tabi'i and the older Tabi'i regarding the acceptance of their narration. Does this distinction have any meaning? Does it affect the narration?

The Shaykh : Your statement regarding the acceptance of the narration is general and needs clarification. Do you mean that if a younger Tabi'i narrates a hadith from a Companion, they do not take it? ... Because he is a younger Tabi'i, or does it mean something else?

The questioner : What is meant by this distinction?

The Shaykh : Oh?

The questioner : What is meant by the distinction, specifically in the case of the mursal hadith?

The Shaykh : You are currently...

The questioner : Let us clarify further.

The Shaykh : I told you that this came before that.

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Because I know that this statement is not said in an absolute sense. But what is your situation? As usual, you tried to evade, and evasion is like trying to find an exit. You then found the exit, the way out: the younger Tabi'i is not distinguished from the older one in terms of the acceptance of his narration. However, when the younger Tabi'i is mentioned, it is only in the context of the mursal hadith. In other words, if the hadith is mursal and the one who made it mursal is an older Tabi'i, it is a proof (hujjah). If it is a younger Tabi'i, it is not a proof. This is where the younger Tabi'i is mentioned. But this distinction has no basis. What do they intend? If we go back to the previous discussion regarding the mursal hadith and mention the reason for not accepting it as proof, which is ignorance of who informed him or who narrated the hadith to him, and now is an opportunity for me to say: It is a mistake for one to say, among the scholars of terminology, like the author of "al-Bayquniyyah," who says in the definition of mursal: "That from which the Companion has dropped." This is a mistake. Why? Because if we imagine a mursal hadith and claim that it is mursal only because the Companion is not mentioned in it, then the hadith becomes valid. Why? Because if an older Tabi'i, as they say, said: "The Messenger of Allah said," and it is supposed that the Companion dropped from it, it is as if he said: "A man from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah narrated to me." Who is this man from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah? It is not known. But what is known about him? That he is a Companion. Now, if we return to the definition in al-Bayquniyyah: "That from which the Companion has dropped," then the hadith circulated from the Tabi'i from a Companion. But in both cases, there is a formal difference. In the mursal hadith, he did not say: "A Companion narrated to me." In the second case, he said: "A man from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah narrated to me." So, is the one where the Tabi'i says "A man from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah narrated to me" rejected, while the other is accepted? It is accepted.

The questioner : In al-Bayquni?

The Shaykh : In al-Bayquni and other than al-Bayquni, all scholars of hadith accept the hadith in which the Tabi'i says: "A man from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah narrated to me." Because they say: All the Companions are trustworthy (adul), so it is not necessary for us to know his identity and personality; they are all trustworthy. For this reason, the definition of mursal as "that from which the Companion has dropped" is a mistake. Because if that were the case, every mursal would have to be a proof, like the hadith in which the Tabi'i said: "A man from the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) narrated to me." What would the definition be then?

The questioner : That the Tabi'i raised it to the Messenger.

The Shaykh : It is the statement of the Tabi'i: "The Messenger of Allah said." It is not that a Companion dropped from it. Because we assume that this Tabi'i who said "The Messenger of Allah said" has been established for us in some way that there was a Companion between him and the Messenger. If al-Bayquni's statement is true that a Companion dropped from it, but is this the nature of every mursal? The answer is no. The most memorizing of the later scholars, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, said: "It has been established for us a mursal hadith in which there were four or five Tabi'un between it and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i who said: 'The Messenger of Allah narrated to me.' So, if this first Tabi'i had said: 'The Messenger of Allah said,' it would mean that four people dropped between him and the Messenger. Therefore, it is a mistake to imagine that every mursal is one from which a Companion has dropped."
The Shaykh : So, let us return and say now: What is the relationship of this detail to the younger Tabi'i and the older Tabi'i? Its relationship is that when the Tabi'i who made the hadith mursal is an older Tabi'i, the possibility that he took it from a Tabi'i is weak. Do you understand how? And the opposite is the opposite: when the one who made it mursal is a younger Tabi'i, the possibility that he took it from a Tabi'i older than him is stronger. Nevertheless, the scholars of hadith do not take this distinction into account, that the Tabi'i is older or younger. Why? Because an older Tabi'i may narrate from an older Tabi'i, there is no problem. And it is known in the science of hadith a type of the sciences of hadith: the narration of the elders from the juniors; meaning the Shaykh narrates from his student. This exists. So, if we have a mursal from an older Tabi'i, the possibility that he took it from other than a Companion does not collapse. No, this possibility is present. Therefore, this distinction does not benefit in the issue of not using the mursal hadith as proof.