Is the issue of using a mursal (report missing the Companion link) as evidence a matter of scholarly disagreement?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : As for what you brought up regarding Imam Muslim also using a mursal as evidence, or whatever you said?
The questioner : No... he said...
The Shaykh : So I misunderstood you. It is not always possible to reconcile two statements that are completely different. Often, the difference is one of contradiction, not one of variety. The one who says a mursal hadith is weak and cannot be used as evidence directly contradicts the one who says a mursal hadith is valid and can be used as evidence. It is not possible to reconcile these two opposing views because one must arrive at a preference (tarjih) in such cases. I mentioned to you two pieces of evidence or two paths for this preference. The first path is to rely on the statements of specialists. As long as the hadith scholars do not use mursal reports as evidence, their view is stronger than that of the jurists. The second point, which I mentioned, is that those who advocate using mursal hadiths as evidence must also accept a mursal report from someone in the last era, following this sequence. Why do they accept a mursal report from a Tabi'i (successor) because he is trustworthy? Then let them accept a mursal report from a successor to a Tabi'i because he is trustworthy. Then let them accept a mursal report from a successor to a successor to a Tabi'i because he is trustworthy. Then let them accept the statements of all the sheikhs on the pulpits today who say, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said..." while the specialists in knowledge say this is a lie against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Finally, we said that those who advocate using mursal hadiths as evidence must accept hadiths with authentic chains of narration, even if Muslim did not narrate them, or at least it is not recommended for Muslim to narrate them. 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, which I titled "Setting up Catapults to Demolish the Story of the Ghuraniq". There, I discussed this story and explained the sources of these mursal reports with authentic chains. Another example specifically applies to the Malikis, who use mursal reports as evidence and still accept them, whereas the Hanafis accepted them based on their position of using mursal reports as evidence. The example is that laughter in prayer invalidates the prayer and breaks the wudu' (ablution) at the same time. Did the Malikis accept this hadith? No. Those who say a mursal hadith is evidence did not intend this, even though this mursal report is from Abu 'Alyah, who is a Tabi'i, and the chain to him is authentic. The hadith scholars found no way to reject this hadith except by saying it is mursal. One who investigates the reasons for declaring hadiths defective will find that in many hadiths, the only reason given is "So-and-so made it mursal" and "So-and-so made it mursal," and it is weak and cannot be used as evidence because the one who made it mursal is trustworthy. Therefore, the mursal hadith is not accepted as evidence by the hadith scholars, and it should be the position of every student of this science for the reasons mentioned earlier. Thus, the statement of the hadith scholars, because they are specialists and because the scientific argument is with them in not using mursal hadiths as evidence, is stronger than the statement of those who oppose them among the other imams. The statement of al-Shafi'i, as we said, is that... in reality, he used a specific mursal as evidence, which is when it comes from another connected path. He said in some of what was reported from him, "I narrated it as mursal, but I gained a benefit." They transmitted from Imam al-Shafi'i a benefit here, with a precise condition. He said, "A mursal is strengthened if it comes from another mursal path, provided that the first mursal is in... not the mursal of the other part." We will suffice with this condition, which is very precise. It is the fear that the missing intermediary in both mursal reports is the same person. Each of them took from a single intermediary. We must guard against this unity of the mursal reports through the same narrator. To guard against this, it should be known from their biographies that the sheikhs of each of them are different from the sheikhs of the other... This is a very precise matter, but it opened up for me a knowledge that I say I have not found written down. It may be correct, and it may be incorrect. It is not using a mursal as evidence at all, even if it comes from multiple chains and paths, and even if it comes from mursal narrators where the sheikhs of each mursal are different from the sheikhs 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 missing sheikh is one single sheikh, then we should know that the sheikhs of each of the mursal narrators are different from the sheikhs of the other. This is possible as long as the mursal narrator's name is mentioned, by referring to his biography to ensure that all his sheikhs are different from the sheikhs of the other mursal narrator. But is it not possible that the sheikh of this missing one is different from the sheikh missing from the other, but these two meet with one single sheikh? As long as this is possible, then with the possibility, the argument falls away. I do not know if I have clarified this last point to you. If we had a board, we would have drawn it for you, and perhaps some of you would give us a paper so I could record the drawing.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : 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 upper circles represents a sheikh for each of the mursal narrators. We now say that we know that the sheikhs of each of the mursal narrators are different from the sheikhs of the other. So we have established that this sheikh is not this sheikh. But is it not possible that these two missing sheikhs, whom we assumed to be two different sheikhs, might meet in the upper area? That is, they are one single sheikh. And this single sheikh... So then, it returns... these two mursal reports in this form to one single mursal, which is Abu 'Alyah. Perhaps what helps in understanding this reasoning, which I say I have not seen but is sound logic based on Imam al-Shafi'i... on this basis, why do hadith scholars not use a mursal as evidence? By a mursal or a mursal, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said, "Because it has been established for us by induction that a mursal narrator, who is a Tabi'i, narrates from a Tabi'i like him, and sometimes from a third Tabi'i like him, and sometimes from a fourth, fifth, and sixth Tabi'i. I found some hadiths narrated from the path of a Tabi'i who said, 'So-and-so told me,' and he is a Tabi'i, who said, 'So-and-so told me,' and he is a Tabi'i, and so on, five or six Tabi'is. If he receives it in a sequence from one another, then when a mursal hadith comes to us from a Tabi'i who said, 'The Messenger of Allah said,' we should not assume from the start that the missing one is a Companion. We should not say that Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib definitely heard this hadith from a Companion, and all the Companions are upright, so the hadith would be authentic. No, because it is possible that this Tabi'i received it from another Tabi'i like him. If that is the case, and it is possible, then this Tabi'i might be trustworthy in reality, or he might be weak or unknown. So, in the first possibility, that he is trustworthy, it is possible that he took it from a trustworthy Tabi'i, from a third Tabi'i, and what was said about the second applies to him: it is possible he is trustworthy and it is possible he is weak. So the first possibility is that he might have taken 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 sheikhs for each of the mursal narrators might have both taken from one single narrator, which is what al-Shafi'i feared when I assume that the hadith of each of the mursal narrators is different from the other narrator. Therefore, it results for us finally that a 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 a path other than the first mursal, then the mind is reassured to use this mursal as evidence because of its coming from the other path. This is what relates to the first answer.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, if the mursal were permissible in that case, the mursal would have no value.
The questioner : ... weakness
The Shaykh : Yes, others
The questioner : No... he said...
The Shaykh : So I misunderstood you. It is not always possible to reconcile two statements that are completely different. Often, the difference is one of contradiction, not one of variety. The one who says a mursal hadith is weak and cannot be used as evidence directly contradicts the one who says a mursal hadith is valid and can be used as evidence. It is not possible to reconcile these two opposing views because one must arrive at a preference (tarjih) in such cases. I mentioned to you two pieces of evidence or two paths for this preference. The first path is to rely on the statements of specialists. As long as the hadith scholars do not use mursal reports as evidence, their view is stronger than that of the jurists. The second point, which I mentioned, is that those who advocate using mursal hadiths as evidence must also accept a mursal report from someone in the last era, following this sequence. Why do they accept a mursal report from a Tabi'i (successor) because he is trustworthy? Then let them accept a mursal report from a successor to a Tabi'i because he is trustworthy. Then let them accept a mursal report from a successor to a successor to a Tabi'i because he is trustworthy. Then let them accept the statements of all the sheikhs on the pulpits today who say, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said..." while the specialists in knowledge say this is a lie against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Finally, we said that those who advocate using mursal hadiths as evidence must accept hadiths with authentic chains of narration, even if Muslim did not narrate them, or at least it is not recommended for Muslim to narrate them. 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, which I titled "Setting up Catapults to Demolish the Story of the Ghuraniq". There, I discussed this story and explained the sources of these mursal reports with authentic chains. Another example specifically applies to the Malikis, who use mursal reports as evidence and still accept them, whereas the Hanafis accepted them based on their position of using mursal reports as evidence. The example is that laughter in prayer invalidates the prayer and breaks the wudu' (ablution) at the same time. Did the Malikis accept this hadith? No. Those who say a mursal hadith is evidence did not intend this, even though this mursal report is from Abu 'Alyah, who is a Tabi'i, and the chain to him is authentic. The hadith scholars found no way to reject this hadith except by saying it is mursal. One who investigates the reasons for declaring hadiths defective will find that in many hadiths, the only reason given is "So-and-so made it mursal" and "So-and-so made it mursal," and it is weak and cannot be used as evidence because the one who made it mursal is trustworthy. Therefore, the mursal hadith is not accepted as evidence by the hadith scholars, and it should be the position of every student of this science for the reasons mentioned earlier. Thus, the statement of the hadith scholars, because they are specialists and because the scientific argument is with them in not using mursal hadiths as evidence, is stronger than the statement of those who oppose them among the other imams. The statement of al-Shafi'i, as we said, is that... in reality, he used a specific mursal as evidence, which is when it comes from another connected path. He said in some of what was reported from him, "I narrated it as mursal, but I gained a benefit." They transmitted from Imam al-Shafi'i a benefit here, with a precise condition. He said, "A mursal is strengthened if it comes from another mursal path, provided that the first mursal is in... not the mursal of the other part." We will suffice with this condition, which is very precise. It is the fear that the missing intermediary in both mursal reports is the same person. Each of them took from a single intermediary. We must guard against this unity of the mursal reports through the same narrator. To guard against this, it should be known from their biographies that the sheikhs of each of them are different from the sheikhs of the other... This is a very precise matter, but it opened up for me a knowledge that I say I have not found written down. It may be correct, and it may be incorrect. It is not using a mursal as evidence at all, even if it comes from multiple chains and paths, and even if it comes from mursal narrators where the sheikhs of each mursal are different from the sheikhs 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 missing sheikh is one single sheikh, then we should know that the sheikhs of each of the mursal narrators are different from the sheikhs of the other. This is possible as long as the mursal narrator's name is mentioned, by referring to his biography to ensure that all his sheikhs are different from the sheikhs of the other mursal narrator. But is it not possible that the sheikh of this missing one is different from the sheikh missing from the other, but these two meet with one single sheikh? As long as this is possible, then with the possibility, the argument falls away. I do not know if I have clarified this last point to you. If we had a board, we would have drawn it for you, and perhaps some of you would give us a paper so I could record the drawing.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : 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 upper circles represents a sheikh for each of the mursal narrators. We now say that we know that the sheikhs of each of the mursal narrators are different from the sheikhs of the other. So we have established that this sheikh is not this sheikh. But is it not possible that these two missing sheikhs, whom we assumed to be two different sheikhs, might meet in the upper area? That is, they are one single sheikh. And this single sheikh... So then, it returns... these two mursal reports in this form to one single mursal, which is Abu 'Alyah. Perhaps what helps in understanding this reasoning, which I say I have not seen but is sound logic based on Imam al-Shafi'i... on this basis, why do hadith scholars not use a mursal as evidence? By a mursal or a mursal, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said, "Because it has been established for us by induction that a mursal narrator, who is a Tabi'i, narrates from a Tabi'i like him, and sometimes from a third Tabi'i like him, and sometimes from a fourth, fifth, and sixth Tabi'i. I found some hadiths narrated from the path of a Tabi'i who said, 'So-and-so told me,' and he is a Tabi'i, who said, 'So-and-so told me,' and he is a Tabi'i, and so on, five or six Tabi'is. If he receives it in a sequence from one another, then when a mursal hadith comes to us from a Tabi'i who said, 'The Messenger of Allah said,' we should not assume from the start that the missing one is a Companion. We should not say that Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib definitely heard this hadith from a Companion, and all the Companions are upright, so the hadith would be authentic. No, because it is possible that this Tabi'i received it from another Tabi'i like him. If that is the case, and it is possible, then this Tabi'i might be trustworthy in reality, or he might be weak or unknown. So, in the first possibility, that he is trustworthy, it is possible that he took it from a trustworthy Tabi'i, from a third Tabi'i, and what was said about the second applies to him: it is possible he is trustworthy and it is possible he is weak. So the first possibility is that he might have taken 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 sheikhs for each of the mursal narrators might have both taken from one single narrator, which is what al-Shafi'i feared when I assume that the hadith of each of the mursal narrators is different from the other narrator. Therefore, it results for us finally that a 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 a path other than the first mursal, then the mind is reassured to use this mursal as evidence because of its coming from the other path. This is what relates to the first answer.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, if the mursal were permissible in that case, the mursal would have no value.
The questioner : ... weakness
The Shaykh : Yes, others