What is the ruling on one who doubts some of the hadiths of the Sunnah and their validity due to the disagreement among them?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : I do not know if the questioner actually expressed the doubt better, and therefore I am speaking within the limits of what I have read and heard.
Since the questioner says that they doubt some of the hadiths, he has, even if only by reporting the views of others, divided the hadiths from this group into two categories: a category whose authenticity they doubt, and a category whose authenticity they do not doubt. What is it that made them not doubt the first category, and what led them to doubt the second? If what led them to not doubt the first category is the science of hadith, with its principles, critique and vindication of narrators, then we will then refer to this science regarding the second category in which they doubted. And if they believed in the authenticity of the first category merely arbitrarily, without relying on a science that has weight, status, and long, extensive service, then there is no difference for us in their belief in the authenticity of such hadiths that they authenticated by their desires, not by the science of hadith, and ... those hadiths that they rejected, because they also rejected them by following their desires. So this group must either believe with us in the absolute validity of the hadith, as you heard in the lecture regarding rulings and beliefs, or they must join one of the two previous groups: the Quranists, who claim to explicitly deny the hadith absolutely and claim that the Islamic religion is only the Quran, or they must join the second group, which is the sister of the first, namely the Qadiani sect, with the verbal and political difference that this sect resorts to, unlike the first, as you heard. They say we take the Book and the Sunnah, and the criterion for knowing the sound from the defective in the Sunnah is what agrees with the Book; what agrees with it is sound, and what does not agree with it is sound. So they have demolished the science of hadith from beginning to end.
And I want to mention here, on this occasion, a very important matter. There are matters related to the Shari'ah and related to the life of the Messenger and the life of the Companions, indeed the life of every nation, that fall into a category that can be said to be neither in agreement nor in disagreement with the Book. What is the way to know this category, whether it existed or not? The Quran did not address it, neither negatively nor positively, neither by negation nor affirmation. For example, a very simple example: the Messenger of Allah lived for sixty-three years. Is this hadith in agreement with the Quran? ... You recognize that this meaning should be in the Quran; it is not said of such a hadith that it is in agreement with the Quran. Likewise, if it were said to be in disagreement with the Quran, as I mentioned earlier, the Quran did not address this detail at all. And so on, dozens of hadiths, indeed hundreds and thousands of hadiths, related to the core of the Shari'ah in beliefs and rulings, of which it cannot be said that they agree with the Quran or that they are related to the Quran. Therefore, the Muslim who is well-versed in the Book and the authentic Sunnah finds himself compelled to believe that there is something other than the Quran. And some of the verses you heard in the lecture and the hadiths are sufficient, so as not to ... repeat.
So what is the way to know this other thing that every researcher feels? I mean, where do we take the biography of the Messenger (peace be upon him) from? The details of the expeditions and missions, and similar things, where are they taken from? The Quran first did not address except some of the expeditions, and then it addressed what it addressed with great brevity, and ... in the expeditions, many rulings were legislated regarding voluntary offerings, war spoils, and the like, and these matters were not all known ... through the path of the Sunnah.
What is the way to know this Sunnah? We have no path by the consensus of the Muslims except the path of the scholars of hadith. When we say to this questioner, we ask you, every one who doubts in any hadith, what led you to doubt? If the doubt stems from a lack of faith in the hadith itself, you have heard the response to it, which is a response to which there is no response. And if the doubt in any hadith by any person stems from his ignorance of the science of hadith, the answer is exactly like jurisprudence:[An-Nahl 16:43] And if the doubt arises because he has not digested the meaning contained in the hadith, due to his culture, due to his ignorance, due to ... and so on, of other matters such as emotions, environment, and their influence, and the like.
So at that time we say to you, question and answer: any hadith in which any person doubts, we are ready, by the grace of Allah, to investigate with him until we resolve his problem.
And in many cases, the hadith is of what is said in the common language: "This gathering does not deserve this condolence", meaning it is a weak or fabricated hadith. So at that time we relieve him and we relieve ourselves with him. But in many cases, the hadith is authentic, but this authentic hadith must also be understood with a correct understanding, exactly like the Quranic text. And here is the question I want to answer in ... meaning as an answer to this first question, another question: the questioner asks that in some hadiths, the scholars disagreed on them, or that people did not encompass them. We answer: The Quran, although it is preserved in terms of transmission, between the two covers, sometimes disagreement occurs in the understanding of some texts. We are certain that the correct understanding exists in this Ummah. This correct understanding is not lost, but it is not present with every person, even scholars, let alone others. The correct understanding of a verse on which people have disagreed must, must exist in a group of this Ummah, and it is not necessary that it be preserved and known by every individual of this Ummah in every past or future time. Likewise, the hadiths are like this. The hadiths spoken by the Messenger (peace be upon him) are also preserved by the Ummah, but not by every individual of the Ummah. I return to say that the verse must be understood with a correct understanding, likewise the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and they must be understood with a correct understanding. And at that time, the problem falls away, and the correct meaning and clarity appear in the hadith.
For example, in the questioner's question there, regarding the two categories, about the hadith of sorcery, it is understood that the hadith of sorcery has a relationship to the discussion of ahad hadiths and no relationship at all, because our discussion was belief, meaning the unseen matter that Allah informed about, what was and what will be. If an authentic ahad hadith comes to you, it must be declared and believed in. But the issue of the sorcery of the Messenger (peace be upon him) is a historical issue, like the injury of the Messenger (peace be upon him) ... or not? He was injured, and this is known in the biography. Does this have a relationship to belief? It has no relationship to belief. So those who distinguish between ahad hadiths and mutawatir hadiths in belief start with a hadith related to the person of the Messenger: was he injured or not? ... They took that hadith and acted upon it. Likewise, the hadith of the sorcery of the Messenger has no relationship to the ahad hadith related to belief. And when we say the hadith of the sorcery of the Messenger, many people misunderstand it, and the problem naturally enters. And at that time, it is not permissible for this person to surrender to his doubt or problem, but he must always and forever verify the saying of his Lord in His Book:[An-Nahl 16:43].
I do not want to enter now into the discussion of ahad hadiths or the hadith of sorcery, because I have spoken about it more than once. But I say briefly: it is a hadith related to the body of the Messenger, and that weakness and weakness in his body affected him, not in his mind and not in his thought at all. So the fact that he was weak and ill is not a problem. But the problem is to imagine that the Messenger (peace be upon him) was absent from his sanity for days, indeed months, so he speaks and does not know, does not realize, and does not understand. This is impossible for him (peace and blessings be upon him). But that he gets ill, yes, and this is what the hadith of the sorcery of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) contains.
As for the fact that they are not confident in some of the hadiths, I commented on the word "some." Why are they confident in some but not in others? Since the issue is that they claim the hadith was only compiled after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then logically they should have no confidence in any hadith at all. Sufficient proof of the error, indeed the misguidance, of this claim—this lack of confidence—is that if that were the case, nothing would remain in the hands of the Muslims that conveys to them their glorious and radiant history at all. Because if any person has... objections and many doubts about the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who was commanded to make clear the book of his Lord:[An-Nahl 16:44] You, O Messenger, to make clear to the people [An-Nahl 16:44], then if they doubt this clarification, meaning the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then doubt will inevitably spread to the entire history of the Messenger, the entire life of the Companions, all the wars, and all of history. Nothing would remain for us at all. And considering that the scholars of Islamic history, including disbelievers and Orientalists, it is sufficient to cite the testimony of whom? Of the enemy. What does the proverb say?
The questioner : What is excellence?
The Shaykh :"Excellence is what is witnessed by the enemies". These people say that there is no history on the face of the earth more authentic than the history of the Muslims. There is no history more authentic than the history of the Muslims. So what can you say about the history of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his biography in particular, which includes, first and foremost, his (peace and blessings be upon him) clarification of the Noble Qur'an? So this doubt means, as I said before, that these doubters should return to the first or second group. But if they believe, or rather, if they say, "No, we believe in the hadith and the necessity of the hadith, because it is impossible to do without it, otherwise people would come up with new religions in the name of Islam," then we draw their attention to something I previously hinted at briefly: the path to knowing the hadith and the scholars of hadith.
Since the questioner says that they doubt some of the hadiths, he has, even if only by reporting the views of others, divided the hadiths from this group into two categories: a category whose authenticity they doubt, and a category whose authenticity they do not doubt. What is it that made them not doubt the first category, and what led them to doubt the second? If what led them to not doubt the first category is the science of hadith, with its principles, critique and vindication of narrators, then we will then refer to this science regarding the second category in which they doubted. And if they believed in the authenticity of the first category merely arbitrarily, without relying on a science that has weight, status, and long, extensive service, then there is no difference for us in their belief in the authenticity of such hadiths that they authenticated by their desires, not by the science of hadith, and ... those hadiths that they rejected, because they also rejected them by following their desires. So this group must either believe with us in the absolute validity of the hadith, as you heard in the lecture regarding rulings and beliefs, or they must join one of the two previous groups: the Quranists, who claim to explicitly deny the hadith absolutely and claim that the Islamic religion is only the Quran, or they must join the second group, which is the sister of the first, namely the Qadiani sect, with the verbal and political difference that this sect resorts to, unlike the first, as you heard. They say we take the Book and the Sunnah, and the criterion for knowing the sound from the defective in the Sunnah is what agrees with the Book; what agrees with it is sound, and what does not agree with it is sound. So they have demolished the science of hadith from beginning to end.
And I want to mention here, on this occasion, a very important matter. There are matters related to the Shari'ah and related to the life of the Messenger and the life of the Companions, indeed the life of every nation, that fall into a category that can be said to be neither in agreement nor in disagreement with the Book. What is the way to know this category, whether it existed or not? The Quran did not address it, neither negatively nor positively, neither by negation nor affirmation. For example, a very simple example: the Messenger of Allah lived for sixty-three years. Is this hadith in agreement with the Quran? ... You recognize that this meaning should be in the Quran; it is not said of such a hadith that it is in agreement with the Quran. Likewise, if it were said to be in disagreement with the Quran, as I mentioned earlier, the Quran did not address this detail at all. And so on, dozens of hadiths, indeed hundreds and thousands of hadiths, related to the core of the Shari'ah in beliefs and rulings, of which it cannot be said that they agree with the Quran or that they are related to the Quran. Therefore, the Muslim who is well-versed in the Book and the authentic Sunnah finds himself compelled to believe that there is something other than the Quran. And some of the verses you heard in the lecture and the hadiths are sufficient, so as not to ... repeat.
So what is the way to know this other thing that every researcher feels? I mean, where do we take the biography of the Messenger (peace be upon him) from? The details of the expeditions and missions, and similar things, where are they taken from? The Quran first did not address except some of the expeditions, and then it addressed what it addressed with great brevity, and ... in the expeditions, many rulings were legislated regarding voluntary offerings, war spoils, and the like, and these matters were not all known ... through the path of the Sunnah.
What is the way to know this Sunnah? We have no path by the consensus of the Muslims except the path of the scholars of hadith. When we say to this questioner, we ask you, every one who doubts in any hadith, what led you to doubt? If the doubt stems from a lack of faith in the hadith itself, you have heard the response to it, which is a response to which there is no response. And if the doubt in any hadith by any person stems from his ignorance of the science of hadith, the answer is exactly like jurisprudence:
So ask the people of the message if you do not know.
فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمونSo at that time we say to you, question and answer: any hadith in which any person doubts, we are ready, by the grace of Allah, to investigate with him until we resolve his problem.
And in many cases, the hadith is of what is said in the common language: "This gathering does not deserve this condolence", meaning it is a weak or fabricated hadith. So at that time we relieve him and we relieve ourselves with him. But in many cases, the hadith is authentic, but this authentic hadith must also be understood with a correct understanding, exactly like the Quranic text. And here is the question I want to answer in ... meaning as an answer to this first question, another question: the questioner asks that in some hadiths, the scholars disagreed on them, or that people did not encompass them. We answer: The Quran, although it is preserved in terms of transmission, between the two covers, sometimes disagreement occurs in the understanding of some texts. We are certain that the correct understanding exists in this Ummah. This correct understanding is not lost, but it is not present with every person, even scholars, let alone others. The correct understanding of a verse on which people have disagreed must, must exist in a group of this Ummah, and it is not necessary that it be preserved and known by every individual of this Ummah in every past or future time. Likewise, the hadiths are like this. The hadiths spoken by the Messenger (peace be upon him) are also preserved by the Ummah, but not by every individual of the Ummah. I return to say that the verse must be understood with a correct understanding, likewise the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and they must be understood with a correct understanding. And at that time, the problem falls away, and the correct meaning and clarity appear in the hadith.
For example, in the questioner's question there, regarding the two categories, about the hadith of sorcery, it is understood that the hadith of sorcery has a relationship to the discussion of ahad hadiths and no relationship at all, because our discussion was belief, meaning the unseen matter that Allah informed about, what was and what will be. If an authentic ahad hadith comes to you, it must be declared and believed in. But the issue of the sorcery of the Messenger (peace be upon him) is a historical issue, like the injury of the Messenger (peace be upon him) ... or not? He was injured, and this is known in the biography. Does this have a relationship to belief? It has no relationship to belief. So those who distinguish between ahad hadiths and mutawatir hadiths in belief start with a hadith related to the person of the Messenger: was he injured or not? ... They took that hadith and acted upon it. Likewise, the hadith of the sorcery of the Messenger has no relationship to the ahad hadith related to belief. And when we say the hadith of the sorcery of the Messenger, many people misunderstand it, and the problem naturally enters. And at that time, it is not permissible for this person to surrender to his doubt or problem, but he must always and forever verify the saying of his Lord in His Book:
So ask the people of the message if you do not know.
فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمونI do not want to enter now into the discussion of ahad hadiths or the hadith of sorcery, because I have spoken about it more than once. But I say briefly: it is a hadith related to the body of the Messenger, and that weakness and weakness in his body affected him, not in his mind and not in his thought at all. So the fact that he was weak and ill is not a problem. But the problem is to imagine that the Messenger (peace be upon him) was absent from his sanity for days, indeed months, so he speaks and does not know, does not realize, and does not understand. This is impossible for him (peace and blessings be upon him). But that he gets ill, yes, and this is what the hadith of the sorcery of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) contains.
As for the fact that they are not confident in some of the hadiths, I commented on the word "some." Why are they confident in some but not in others? Since the issue is that they claim the hadith was only compiled after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then logically they should have no confidence in any hadith at all. Sufficient proof of the error, indeed the misguidance, of this claim—this lack of confidence—is that if that were the case, nothing would remain in the hands of the Muslims that conveys to them their glorious and radiant history at all. Because if any person has... objections and many doubts about the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who was commanded to make clear the book of his Lord:
And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people
وأنزلنا إليك الذكر لتبيّن للناسthat you may make clear
لتبيّنwhat was sent down to them
ما نزّل إليهمThe questioner : What is excellence?
The Shaykh :"Excellence is what is witnessed by the enemies". These people say that there is no history on the face of the earth more authentic than the history of the Muslims. There is no history more authentic than the history of the Muslims. So what can you say about the history of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his biography in particular, which includes, first and foremost, his (peace and blessings be upon him) clarification of the Noble Qur'an? So this doubt means, as I said before, that these doubters should return to the first or second group. But if they believe, or rather, if they say, "No, we believe in the hadith and the necessity of the hadith, because it is impossible to do without it, otherwise people would come up with new religions in the name of Islam," then we draw their attention to something I previously hinted at briefly: the path to knowing the hadith and the scholars of hadith.