Is the issue of using a mursal (disconnected) report as evidence a matter of scholarly disagreement?

The Shaykh : As for what you mentioned in your statement that Imam Muslim also used mursal reports as evidence, or what did you say?

The questioner : No... he said...

The Shaykh : Ah, okay, so I misunderstood you.
Reconciliation is not always and ever possible between two differing opinions; because the difference is often one of contradiction, not one of variety. The one who says: "The mursal hadith is weak and cannot be used as evidence" directly contradicts the one who says: "The mursal hadith is authentic and can be used as evidence." Therefore, reconciliation between these two opposing views is impossible; because here one must resort to determining the stronger position. I mentioned to you two pieces of evidence or two paths for determining the stronger position. The first path: using the opinion of the specialists as evidence. As long as the hadith scholars do not use mursal reports as evidence, their opinion is stronger than that of the jurists. The second thing I mentioned is that it is incumbent upon those who argue for using mursal hadiths as evidence to also use the mursal reports of those who came at the end of time, following this sequence. Why do they use the mursal report of a Tabi'i (successor)? Because he is trustworthy. So let them use the mursal report of a successor to a Tabi'i, because he is trustworthy. So let them use the report of a successor to a successor to a Tabi'i, because he is trustworthy. So let them use the statements of all the sheikhs today on the pulpits who say, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said," while the specialists in knowledge say: "This is a lie attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)!"
And finally: we said that it is incumbent upon those who argue for using mursal hadiths as evidence to accept hadiths with authentic chains, but which Muslim does not narrate, or at least which a Muslim should not narrate. We gave an example of this with the hadith of the Ghuraniq. Perhaps the brothers know that I have a specific treatise on the story of the Ghuraniq titled "Setting up Catapults to Demolish the Story of the Ghuraniq." There I mentioned... this story, and it contains an explanation of the origins of these mursal paths with authentic chains.
Another example specifically applies to the Maliki school, who use mursal reports as evidence and still adhere to this, whereas the Hanafi school adopted this based on their school's position of using mursal reports as evidence. The position is that laughing in prayer invalidates the prayer and breaks the wudu (ablution) at the same time. Did the Malikis adopt this hadith? No, those who say that the mursal hadith is evidence... even though this mursal report is from Abu Ailah, who is a Tabi'i, and the chain to him is authentic. The imams of hadith did not find a way to reject this hadith except by saying: "It is mursal." And whoever investigates the reasoning or the reasons for declaring the hadith imams' narrations defective in many hadiths will not find in this large number of hadiths anything except their saying: "So-and-so connected it and so-and-so disconnected it, so it is weak and cannot be used as evidence," because the one who disconnected it is trustworthy.
Therefore, the mursal hadith is not used as evidence by the hadith scholars, and likewise it should be the position of every student of this science for the reasons previously mentioned.
And on this basis, the statement of the hadith scholars, because they are the specialists, and because the scientific argument is with them in not using the mursal hadith as evidence, their opinion is stronger than that of those who oppose them from the other imams. And the statement of al-Shafi'i, as we said, is in it... in reality, it is about using a specific mursal report as evidence. If it comes from another connected path, he said in some of what was reported from him: "Or mursal." But I benefited from a point they transmitted from Imam al-Shafi'i, and here is a subtle point. He said with a condition: "The mursal is strengthened if it comes from another path as mursal, provided that the first mursal narrator is... not the mursal of the other part..." We will suffice with this condition, which is very subtle. It is the fear that the intermediate narrator dropped from each of the mursal reports is the same; each of them took from one intermediate narrator. To be safe from this coincidence of the two mursal reports having the same narrator, to be safe from that, it should be that each of the mursal narrators is known in their biographies that the teachers of each of them are not the teachers of the other. This is a very subtle matter.
But it opened up for me a knowledge that I say I have not found it written down, and it may be correct and it may be wrong; and that is not using the mursal report as evidence at all, even if it comes from several chains and paths, even if it comes from two mursal narrators where the teachers of each mursal narrator are not the teachers of the other. And therefore it is not used as evidence. This statement of Imam al-Shafi'i mentioned earlier benefited me... If Imam al-Shafi'i says that it is possible that the dropped teacher is one teacher; then we should know that the teachers of each of the mursal narrators are not the teachers of the other. This is possible as long as the mursal narrator is named, it is possible by referring to his biography that all his teachers are not the teachers of the other mursal narrator. But is it not possible that the teacher of this dropped one is not the teacher of the dropped one from the other, but these two meet with one teacher?!... As long as this is possible, with the possibility, the argument falls away. I do not know if this last point has become clear to you. If we had a board, we would have drawn it for you, and perhaps some of you would give us a paper to record the image.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : It is this, this is what I am telling you now... You see at the bottom two circles, each circle represents a mursal narrator. Then you see above the two circles two other circles smaller than the first two. Each of the two upper circles represents a teacher for each of the mursal narrators. And we now say we know that the teachers of each of the mursal narrators are not the teachers of the other. So we have cut off that this teacher is not this one. But is it not possible that these two dropped teachers, and we assumed they are two different teachers; is it not possible that they meet at the upper point, so it is one teacher? And this one teacher... yes; so then it returns with the narration of two mursal reports in this form to one mursal report, which is Abu Ailah. And perhaps among what helps in understanding this reasoning that I say: I have not seen it, but sound logic based on Imam al-Shafi'i... on this, why do the hadith scholars not use the mursal as evidence? The mursal narrator or the mursal report?
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said: Because it has been established for us by induction that the mursal narrator, who is a Tabi'i, narrates from a Tabi'i like him, and sometimes a third Tabi'i like him, and sometimes a fourth, fifth, and sixth Tabi'i. Meaning, some hadiths were found narrated from the path of a Tabi'i who said: "So-and-so narrated to me, and he is a Tabi'i," who said: "So-and-so narrated to me, and he is a Tabi'i," and so on, five or six Tabi'is, with some narrating from others in sequence. So when a mursal hadith comes to us from a Tabi'i, who said: "The Messenger of Allah said"; it is not appropriate to assume from the start that the dropped one is a Companion. It is not appropriate to say that Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib definitely heard this hadith from a Companion, and all the Companions are just, so the hadith would then be authentic. No; because it is possible that this Tabi'i received it from another Tabi'i like him. And if that is the case—and this is possible—then this Tabi'i may be trustworthy in reality, or he may be weak or unknown. So with the first possibility—that he is trustworthy—it is possible that he took it from a trustworthy person from a third Tabi'i, and what was said about the second is said about him: it is possible that he is trustworthy and it is possible that he is weak. So the first possibility is that he took it from a fourth Tabi'i, and so on. So with the possibility, the argument falls away. As long as the matter is so, these two teachers of each of the mursal narrators may have both taken from one narrator, which is what al-Shafi'i feared when he assumed that the hadith of each of the mursal narrators differs from the other for the other narrator.
Therefore, it results for us finally that the mursal hadith is not valid in any way to be used as evidence at all, even if it comes from multiple paths; unlike if it comes connected. If it comes connected, and from another path other than the first mursal; here the soul is reassured to use this mursal report as evidence because it came from another path.
This is what relates to the first answer.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No... then the existence of the mursal would have no value.

The questioner : ... weakness.

The Shaykh: Yes.
Other than that?

The questioner : The hadith of wiping over the socks...